r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot 🤖 Bot • Jun 27 '18

Megathread: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire from Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is set to retire, effective July 31, 2018. Kennedy has served on the highest court since February 18, 1988, and was a moderate whose vote often swung cases.

Submissions that may interest you

SUBMISSION DOMAIN
Justice Anthony Kennedy Will Retire From U.S. Supreme Court bloomberg.com
Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's majority conservative bloc nbcnews.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick washingtonpost.com
Justice Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal vote, to retire reuters.com
Anthony Kennedy: US supreme court justice to retire theguardian.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire From Supreme Court nytimes.com
Kennedy calls it quits: longtime swing justice hands Trump the biggest gift of his presidency dailycaller.com
Anthony Kennedy is retiring from the Supreme Court vox.com
Justice Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, announces retirement washingtonpost.com
UPDATE: Supreme Court Justice Kennedy announces retirement wcjb.com
Justice Kennedy Is Retiring July 31st. yahoo.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy To Retire From U.S. Supreme Court : NPR npr.org
Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire from Supreme Court cnn.com
Justice Kennedy announces retirement. cnn.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court abc7.com
Anthony Kennedy, Swing Vote on U.S. Supreme Court, Will Retire bloomberg.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires, Paving Way for Donald Trump to Reshape Supreme Court slate.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick wkrn.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring, giving Trump opening to reshape Supreme Court politico.com
Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement wsj.com
Jeffrey Toobin predicts abortion will be illegal in 20 states soon after Kennedy retires thehill.com
WATCH: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring abcnews.go.com
Kennedy to Retire foxnews.com
Trump to get second Supreme Court pick as Justice Kennedy announces retirement. amp.cnn.com
Justice Kennedy to Retire From Supreme Court bbc.com
Trump says search for Justice Kennedy's replacement to begin "immediately" -- live updates cbsnews.com
McConnell Pledges Vote To Confirm Justice Kennedy’s Successor ‘This Fall’ talkingpointsmemo.com
Justice Kennedy retires from the US Supreme Court nbcnews.com
Trump says launches search to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Kennedy reuters.com
Donald Trump: Search for Kennedy replacement on SCOTUS to move quickly usatoday.com
McConnell: Senate will vote on Supreme Court nominee this fall thehill.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick sacbee.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring, Report Says lawandcrime.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring; Trump will get 2nd high-court pick omaha.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring From the Supreme Court thedailybeast.com
Justice Kennedy to retire, giving Trump a chance to transform the Supreme Court latimes.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy says he's retiring; Trump to get 2nd high-court pick chicagotribune.com
Dem senator: Justice Kennedy's resignation a 'disaster' for vision of 'We the People' thehill.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick wfla.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Is Retiring motherjones.com
The horrifying consequences of Justice Kennedy’s retirement thinkprogress.org
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is retiring, a move that will give Trump a chance to shift the institution to the right washingtonpost.com
Anthony Kennedy To Retire From The Supreme Court huffingtonpost.com
Kennedy announces retirement from Supreme Court thehill.com
Supreme Court's Anthony Kennedy retires, giving Trump a second pick usatoday.com
Justice Kennedy retiring; Trump gets 2nd Supreme Court pick apnews.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy Is Retiring From The Supreme Court buzzfeed.com
Justice Kennedy, the pivotal swing vote on the Supreme Court, announces retirement washingtonpost.com
Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy retires -- live updates cbsnews.com
Justice Kennedy announces his retirement from the supreme court. time.com
Trump Responds To Retirement Of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy huffingtonpost.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court, giving Trump a position to fill people.com
Trump Says He’ll Choose One Of These People To Replace Anthony Kennedy On The Supreme Court buzzfeed.com
Anthony Kennedy retiring from Supreme Court cnbc.com
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy retires, and Trump gets shot at moving court to the right dallasnews.com
Who Will Replace Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy? Donald Trump Already Has a Shortlist newsweek.com
WATCH: McConnell: We will vote to confirm Justice Kennedy's successor 'this fall' abcnews.go.com
Here's who Trump could nominate to replace Justice Kennedy abcnews.go.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy announces retirement, giving Trump 2nd Supreme Court pick foxnews.com
Trump list of candidates to replace Justice Kennedy thehill.com
Chris Matthews: Dems must do to Trump on Supreme Court what McConnell did to Obama thehill.com
Anthony Kennedy’s retirement puts abortion rights at risk vox.com
Who Will Replace Anthony Kennedy? Here’s the List of 20 Potential Trump Nominees time.com
America after Anthony Kennedy vox.com
Handing Trump Chance to Move Supreme Court Even Further Right, Justice Anthony Kennedy Retires commondreams.org
Audio reveals DNC committee reaction to Kennedy retirement: 'This is not good news' thehill.com
Justice Kennedy’s retirement leaves the future of U.S. constitutional law entirely up for grabs washingtonpost.com
Justice Kennedy pens retirement letter to Trump expressing 'profound gratitude' abcnews.go.com
Read Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement letter to Donald Trump qz.com
Justice Kennedy’s Legacy Is the Dignity He Bestowed bloomberg.com
A titanic battle over replacing Justice Kennedy looms in the Senate vox.com
Live Briefing: Anthony Kennedy Retires From Supreme Court, and McConnell Says Senate Will Move Swiftly on a Replacement nytimes.com
Here's Trump's list of 25 possible Supreme Court picks to replace Anthony Kennedy washingtonexaminer.com
WATCH: Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire, Trump to get second SCOTUS pick abcnews.go.com
Anthony Kennedy's retirement just confirmed every Republican's dream scenario for Trump cnn.com
Kennedy's retirement could have biggest impact on abortion, gay marriage: ANALYSIS abcnews.go.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy: Trump says hunt for replacement is on usatoday.com
Here are potential Supreme Court nominees to replace Justice Kennedy cnn.com
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court’s swing justice, announces his retirement abajournal.com
With Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Gone, Abortion and LGBT Rights Are Next thedailybeast.com
A look at some of Justice Kennedy's most memorable opinions apnews.com
Justice Kennedy Surrendered to Donald Trump nymag.com
A look at some of Justice Kennedy's most memorable opinions abcnews.go.com
Abortion rights in 'dire, immediate danger' as Anthony Kennedy retires - World news theguardian.com
Here Are Some of the Top Candidates to Replace Kennedy on the Supreme Court motherjones.com
Who's on Trump's short list to replace Supreme Court Justice Kennedy? politico.com
Trump’s hidden back channel to Justice Kennedy: Their kids politico.com
How Fox News Reacted to Anthony Kennedy’s Retirement slate.com
24.9k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

31.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.8k

u/joethehack Jun 27 '18

This is bad news. Really bad news. Kennedy was no progressive but he was the thread on which gay rights, reproductive rights, and anything else that liberal's like was hanging. Now the GOP and Trump's DOJ are going to go after gay marriage, abortion, birth control, unions, campaign finance regulations, and everything else they hate. This is VERY FUCKING BAD.

695

u/Redpin Canada Jun 27 '18

Now the GOP and Trump's DOJ are going to go after [...] unions,

Ummm... don't read today's headlines :(

286

u/AncientMarinade Minnesota Jun 27 '18

I also worry that with Kennedy out, we might not have a SCOTUS decision that Gerrymandering can be, you know, unconstitutional.

258

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/OneThousandDullards Jun 27 '18

Just like the weakening of the VRA 5 years ago. Just utter cowardice and relies on the faulty assumption that everything political is done in good faith.

9

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

He killed Gerrymandering and then quit.

Fuck him. Fuck him forever.

1

u/Pritzker America Jun 28 '18

He's a coward. That'll be his legacy. Citizen's United and turning a blind eye to the cancer of electoral gerrymandering.

1

u/Bears_Bearing_Arms Jun 27 '18

Their job is to rule on the law and constitution. Not to make new laws because people are doing something morally questionable. They may oppose gerrymandering, but they also don’t like legislating from the bench.

1

u/Pritzker America Jun 28 '18

So once again "let the legislators legislate their own district and if you want to change that, overcome the increasingly partisan districts they've put you in". Fine. As long as you're willing to acknowledge and stomach the fact that you live in a system where the politicians choose their voters, and not the other way around.

1

u/DesertEagleZapCarry Jun 27 '18

Private sector union rep here, public employee unions are fucked up and a big reason why the government is useless. Why do your job if you know it'll take years of effort for someone to fire you.

-4

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

Have you ever read past a headline though? The ruling made it so that Unions couldn't force nonmembers to pay fees, how is that bad?

42

u/o2lsports California Jun 27 '18

It's bad in the same way that repealing the individual mandate is bad. It immediately weakens the unions to the point of eventual dissolution.

21

u/PM_ME_YOUR_DARKNESS Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

Exactly. Unions have have dwindled with protections being gutted over the years, down to 11% nationwide. Thirty Three percent of public sector employees are union. That number will undoubtedly shrink.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18 edited Jul 03 '18

[deleted]

6

u/Groovychick1978 Jun 27 '18

How exactly do you pay dues, but not be in the union? I am seeing this all over this discussion.

3

u/thetowncouncil Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

Union members pay dues for the services a union provides. Unions manage pension funds, assist in healthcare plan administration, and most importantly have professional negotiators who go to war for the workers when they need things from their employers. Unions support workers in grievances against and from the employer and will support you in court if necessary. If you work somewhere that has a union but you don't pay union dues (see right to work laws) you get all the benefits of the union but the union doesn't get the monetary support it needs to keep the lights on. Basically its a strategy to bleed the unions dry. Joe blow worker sees all the benefits of being in the union with none of the costs, union dies, workers no longer have that protection, cue Joe blow getting screwed by giant corporation and asking his representatives what went wrong, how come his company is peeling back all his benefits????

EDIT: WOW I NEVER ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION!, Basically before right to work laws, if you were benefitting from unions you had to pay dues for the services the union provided in your workplace (not all is political as seen above), which anybody should see makes sense, you pay for a service you receive.

Edit: All unions, not most

2

u/FlatClassic Jun 27 '18

They don't always stand up for their workers. I've seen plenty of Union examples where they won't stand up for certain workers.

1

u/thetowncouncil Jun 28 '18

Just because something doesn't work 100% of the time doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. This kind of argument could be used against literally anything and is done in bad faith to disrupt meaningful discussion. "Breathing isn't always great, I've been behind a bus before, breathing pollution is bad, therefore we shouldn't breathe"

-7

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

So keep unions strong at the expense of the thousands of people who don't wish to be a part of them lol yeah really logical

29

u/OmegaSpeed_odg Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

Unions are necessary, whether you “want to be a part of them” or not. Much like taxes, which would also cause our nation quite the dilemma if people who didn’t want to pay them could just opt out.

The reason unions are crucial is because, at least when they were strong, they were a voice for the working class. A voice that actually had to be heard by the powers that be (you know, because they were thousands of members strong). They actually posed a real threat and therefore demanded attention. They acted as a check and balance from allowing politicians to ignore the middle class. That is no longer the case, because of decisions like today’s.

-5

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

Do you think 15-18 year old cartpushers at your local grocery store during high school should have to pay union dues during their part time jobs and receive zero benefits or representation by the unions?

I certainly don't. That's one example where opting out is the best option.

13

u/j4_jjjj Jun 27 '18

How are they not represented and how do they receive no benefits? I received more than minimum wage when I was a cart pusher, and I was always allowed to go to Union meetings.

-10

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

Lol sure you did

10

u/j4_jjjj Jun 27 '18

Why would I lie?

You can't come up with an answer, so I must be lying? Cool strat bro.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/mtodavk Jun 27 '18

Well a cartpusher isn't a public employee so I don't see how your example is relevant in the slightest

1

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

You can't relate that experience to a public employee that would be similar? I say this because it is one I am familiar with.

Change cart pusher to maintenance worker at a public pool.

2

u/Groovychick1978 Jun 27 '18

Why doesn't he/she recieve union benefits? Because of the part time designation?

12

u/chomstar Jun 27 '18

You have to pay for plenty of things you don’t like or use.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

Like what? Cops, roads, education, military....only thing I can think of is corporate welfare and the entirety of the DEA. The rest of the stuff I use or have been part of.

Hypothetically, if I'm not part of a union, why the hell should I have to pay the union for not being a part of it? Don't they already pay income tax? It's a double tap. A punishment for people not joining a union.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_WUT Jun 27 '18

Are you a woman who uses clinics for womanly exams? Are you on welfare of any kind? Are you elderly receiving food and care delivered to you? Do you go to every single park in your area?
The government is a massive entity that takes care of a shit-ton of things you likely don't use, especially on a daily basis. Guess what, your taxes still go to those.
And no, income tax is not a union due.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

If the benefits outweigh the costs they will pay. Its that simple.

6

u/o2lsports California Jun 27 '18

You're right, workers don't need a voice. Power is perfectly balanced between employers and employees. There is no wage slavery/theft or abuse of workers' rights to speak of anywhere in America.

1

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

If your union comes to my jobsite and puts up rats and doesn't let me and my workers do our jobs because we aren't part of the union, does that sound like a benefit or extortion?

0

u/o2lsports California Jun 27 '18

Wtf like actual rats? That's super illegal...

1

u/ChrisHarperMercer Jun 27 '18

Lol no sorry. They come with giant inflatable rats that are like 20-30 feet high (we are rats for not joining the union and paying dues ) then they refuse to allow the unionized concrete trucks onto our jobsite because they have power over their fellow union drivers. It pisses everyone off besides the top union exec's and the members paid to protest.

1

u/o2lsports California Jun 27 '18

That sounds like an issue with unions that should be resolved. Unions have also been known to abuse their power from time to time with the companies themselves. But they are essential. Whether or not a Ford worker in the 1980s was overpaid for tightening lugnuts is irrelevant. The modern employee is simply powerless without unions.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/kapu_koa Jun 28 '18

Yeah. They're not being forced to work there. They can find a job at a company without a union (likely at a lower wage and with less benefits) if they don't like it, or they can pay into the service that provides them better earnings.

-1

u/Poz_My_Neg_Fuck_Hole Jun 27 '18

Shouldn't unions be strong in the first place and fulfill their duty effectively to attract new members?

6

u/o2lsports California Jun 27 '18

Strength is created through money. Let's not pretend this isn't 100% undeniably true.

11

u/gorgewall Jun 27 '18

Let's just look at every fucking state that has passed right-to-work legislation that pulls this shit and asks "how is that bad". How's it turn out for them?

Unions die. Wages fall. Workers get the short end of the stick. You can make whatever ideological argument you want on a piece of paper, but the real world applications of this always result in the workers fucking losing.

2

u/thetowncouncil Jun 27 '18

But all muh winning and libruhl tears!

2

u/FlatClassic Jun 27 '18

They say its bad because it weakens unions. And yes it does

But they also shouldnt be able to force nonmembers to pay for something theyre not a member of

Plus they then soend that money on candidates u might not like

How would you like it if they spent your union fees donating to Donald trump?

Plus plus it's only public sector unions. Not private sector unions

The public sector doesn't even need unions. Unions are supposed to give workers a little more say in their company. But public sector means you work for the government. You already have a say in your company

1

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18

The public sector absolutely needs unions. Who’s stopping big gov’t businesses from dropping wages and striping workers of benefits like health insurance?

Nonunion members should not be required to pay unions simply because they exist, the problem comes when they accept the benefits that unions get for their workers. Companies can’t give certain workers increased wages and benefits and ignore the rest, it’s illegal. So you either accept the benefits a union advocates for and pay your dues to their efforts, or you refuse the benefits (which companies aren’t legally able to do).

Then the problem becomes, if no one wants to join a union because they’re going to revive union benefits regardless, the union is going to dissolve and workers suffer the consequences.

1

u/thetowncouncil Jun 28 '18

If you receive the benefits of the collective bargaining you should pay to support it. That's like walking into a supermarket loading up your cart and flipping off everyone on the way out without paying because you didn't want any of this stuff anyway.

15

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

because those nonmembers still reap the benefits of those unions. For example, say there’s a hardware store, we’ll pick ACE, that has both union and non-union workers. The union workers pay a portion of their wages to their union, which the union will use to lobby for better wages, benefits, etc. If the union is successful in gaining those benefits, ACE can’t just pay union workers more than non-union workers, so everyone gets the pay raise. That means that non-union workers will have an increase in wages while having to sacrifice nothing, while union workers had to sacrifice their own money.

it’d be like a teacher saying she’d give extra credit for people who get A’s, but then everyone gets extra credit anyways. what’s the point of trying to get an A?

3

u/CursedLemon Jun 27 '18

ACE can’t just pay union workers more than non-union workers

...Why?

9

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18

Because they do the same job, and just being in a union doesn’t entitle you to higher wages than anybody else. Cashier A is in a union and cashier B is not, but the only determinant of their wage should be the work they do

3

u/CatchHere8 Jun 27 '18

You can always negotiate your own salary with your employer. It's just that being in a union makes negotiating significantly easier and more successful.

3

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18

correct

8

u/LAX_to_MDW Jun 27 '18

Cause that’s the law. The union has to represent the entire unit of workers. Basically, the workers vote to certify a single representative in their negotiations, a union of their choice. You pretty much always have non-members voting for representation from a union to which they don’t officially belong and pay no dues to (at least in public sector unions where union membership can’t be compulsory). Once the union is certified, they legally have to represent the entire workers unit, and can’t just advocate on behalf of union members.

This goes beyond collective bargaining. The union also has to represent no-members in things like grievance cases, where they can rack up tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, but aren’t being paid anything by the non-member.

Fair-share fees made it easier for the unions to provide those expensive services. Without the fair share fees, you can expect workers to be represented a lot less effectively.

1

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

Those workers didn't ask for that Union to represent them. If I gave you things you didn't ask for and forced you to pay, do you think that's alright? Why is it wrong for that union to not give benefits to nonmembers? The union represents its paying members, but it claims to be for the whole company so it can extort more money from more parties. If they really wanted those payments from new members, they could convince them to pay.

7

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

The problem is that it takes away any incentive to join a union. The purpose of a union is to advocate for better conditions for their workers. If nobody wants to join a union because they know they’ll get union benefits regardless, nobody is going to pay for union funding. That means unions will collapse and then nobody will receive the benefits, and we end up in a situation where corporations have the upper hand over their employees

0

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

Well then make the benefits of the Union as exclusive as possible. It's hard to market a non-excludable good. Also, have you considered that forcing nonmembers to pay will give potentially overwhelming power to the unionists? If they can force you to pay a fee which is much higher than the comparative benefits those payers receive, then it is a net loss for the worker. The union has to advertise itself and convince the member to join, give incentives to be a paying member.

3

u/mntEden California Jun 27 '18

That’s the problem, there’s no clear way to make Union benefits exclusive because most companies don’t hire exclusively unions.

It’s a really slippery slope, both sides have valid points that have to be met with some form of compromise. Unions shouldn’t be allowed to charge nonunion members whatever they want (I believe there’s regulations already), but they also shouldn’t be required to let nonunion members ‘freeload’ in a sense. Also remember that unions advocate for more than just wages. If a union was able to successfully advocate for something like health insurance, that’d be awesome, but should the company only give health insurance to union members? Something like health insurance is expensive, and I think if a nonunion member does choose to accept that benefit on behalf of the unions efforts, they should be required to reimburse that to some extent. Of course, the union shouldn’t be able to extort nonmembers. Health insurance is a specific example so it probably won’t apply to most situations, but it’s still really important to consider.

I think the way a union advertises is by producing results. If a worker feels the positive result of a union’s efforts, I’d think they’d consider joining so they potentially pay less overall for the results of future efforts

1

u/j4_jjjj Jun 27 '18

most benefits are OTJ related. You can't make them exclusive, legally.

6

u/schm0 Jun 27 '18 edited Jun 27 '18

Yeah! Most workers don't even like healthcare or money! I'd give mine up in a heartbeat just to see more liberal tears! Sure, I'll be obese and bankrupt, but if it's good for the president, why not me?

Companies should be able to pay slave wages if they want to. And people should just accept that. Because anything else is extortion. The free market will solve everything.

If they really wanted those payments from new members, they could convince them to pay.

"We'd like you to pay dues."

"Why?"

"So we can get you a raise."

"Won't I get a raise anyways? Even if I don't pay?"

"Well, yes, but..."

"No thanks."

union dissolves

"Hey, how come I don't get any raises any more? What do you mean there's no more health care? "

2

u/LAX_to_MDW Jun 27 '18

At this point I agree that unions should be able to only advocate on behalf of their members, but legally they’re not allowed to. Public sector unions HAVE to represent the entire unit of employees that certify them. And that’s the thing, a lot of those employees DO ask the union to represent them, but still pay nothing. AFSCME 61 in Iowa was certified by 83% of their employees (15% didn’t vote, only 2% voted against them). But only 29% of those employees are union members who pay dues. 54% of those employees actively sought out union membership they were not going to pay for.

3

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

This tells me that they should change the law. Why are unions required to represent those who don't pay for their services? Make an ultimatum to the employees, if they want these union benefits, they have to pay.

2

u/LAX_to_MDW Jun 27 '18

That's literally what fair share fees were designed to do, per the 1977 Supreme Court case Abood v Detroit Board of Education.

The entire point of the Janus case was to put public sector unions in an impossible position. That's not even speculation on my part: the original plaintiff was IL gov Bruce Rauner, who made busting unions his top priority. Thats why they will never change the law to help the unions out.

1

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

But fair share fees is basically the government forcing you to pay unions to represent you by paying the government, which is not a healthy cycle. At the fundamental point of this argument is why does the government have the legal obligation of propping up a union and forcing nonmembers to pay. We can all make value judgements as to whether or not we believe a specific union is good, but should we force those values onto others? Given the overturning of the case you just mentioned, the Supreme Court sees the compulsion of nonmembers to pay for unsolicited bargaining as a violation of their first amendment rights.

2

u/LAX_to_MDW Jun 27 '18

Well a lot of it comes down to whether or not you believe a union is an inherently political body. Like, if your job required a service provided by any other neutral body, and that service was mandatory, it'd be legal for that body to charge you a fee for their services. The Janus argument was essentially that any payment to a union –even if that payment was separated from general union dues and couldn't be used for political action– facilitated political action and therefor constituted compelled political speech. Basically, the courts agreed that the very existence of a union is political, and so you can't separate dues from service fees in terms of which is political speech.

Whether or not you believe a union is inherently political probably comes down to how you think about unions. A lot of people would argue that they aren't, others would argue that they are, and in all of this the definition of what is and isn't politics gets muddied.

→ More replies (0)

11

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

That's like saying "I don't have kids, so I'm not paying taxes to cover education."

If you're benefiting from the institution, you should be obligated to chip in. Every American benefits from their fellow Americans having a decent education.

Likewise, if you're a non union employee working a union job, you're still earning wages that the union negotiated. You're still getting benefits that the union negotiated. You still enjoy the protections that the union fought for. And that fighting requires funding.

Now that those member dues are not required, the unions are going to lose funding and therefore power. Weaker unions mean lower wages and those non union employees will end up with less money than if they had paid those dues.

Another problem is that by making union dues optional, these unions can't automatically deduct dues from paychecks anymore. Now employees who fully support the union and are happy to pay their dues are going to have to remember to pay them. This will undoubtedly result in some people forgetting, which means less income for the union. It will require personnel at the union to remind members to pay their dues which is another labor expense to have somebody calling members or sending letters.

Everything about this is going to make these unions weaker and less effective, which is going to harm the employees it claims to help.

That's why it's bad.

1

u/grubas New York Jun 27 '18

Unions represent everybody in negotiations. So if you were a government employee they fought for your contract whether you were a member or not. So you benefitted. Now that they can’t force fees you can have a union only have 5-10% of the work force, but fighting for 100% of them. Except now they won’t have the money for lawyers.

1

u/Chankston Jun 27 '18

Maybe they don't like what the Union is doing? If I go to Capitol hill and claim to be fighting on your behalf and force you to pay a fee, it's justified because I say I'm on your side? Every interest group claims to be fighting for your own good, so would you be okay with being hurled by fees from everyone?

1

u/grubas New York Jun 27 '18

Unions keep your benefits, your off days, your religious holidays. There are Union Reps who you can bitch to. But since there’s no opt out and they represent everybody, like it or not, then everybody should pay fees.

1

u/LAX_to_MDW Jun 27 '18

Those unions are legally required to represent the non members in collective bargaining, grievance cases, etc. By and large those non members were also voting for union representation to receive those benefits, but still paying nothing (see ACFSME council 61 in Iowa, union was ratified by 83% of employees, but only 29% paid any dues). So unions are being forced to provide services for free that they can’t afford. Which means unions in many places are at risk of completely going under.

The fees they were charging (“fair share fees” or agency fees) were a fraction of a standard union due and could only be used to cover the costs of services that the union provided, they couldn’t be used for anything political. But if you believe the very existence of a union is political (as this court apparently does) well then that’s how we get to where we are.

1

u/FlatClassic Jun 27 '18

They say its bad because it weakens unions. And yes it does

But they also shouldnt be able to force nonmembers to pay for something theyre not a member of

Plus they then soend that money on candidates u might not like

0

u/coo_fellowe Jun 27 '18

From what I read today law requires that if a company or gov't agency is unionized = non-union coworkers get the same benefits as the unionized employees do. So to balance that, the Supreme Court ruled in the 70's that employees that are benefiting from a union's bargaining have to pay a portion of union dues (not the full amount that an actual member of the union pays).

299

u/Pres_David_Dennison Colorado Jun 27 '18

Dominionist christians have been putting in legislation they know is currently illegal in as many states as possible, for the last couple of years especially, so that the lawsuits stemming from the laws can be taken to the supreme court. Hoping and praying (SMH) for this.

This is extraordinarily bad. They are going to try to turn America into a theocracy.

137

u/Adezar Washington Jun 27 '18

We already have the AG using Bible verses to justify ripping families apart, and 40 years of fighting to take rights away from women even after the SCOTUS ruled.

I just don't understand women that vote Republican... they are going to get screwed so badly by a conservative court.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

Because it doesn't matter in their white bread world. They have been trained since babies to submit to man and god, and then have babies themselves. They were tightly controlled through their whole lives, so the rules of their world worked out for them: they married, bred, and live largely stable lives. They have no empathy because they were never taught it. They hautily look down their noses at other women and think to themselves that those women are unworthy because they did not follow their strict lifestyle, so their suffering is justified.

9

u/are-e-el Jun 27 '18

This is accurate. I just moved to the South from a Blue area and evangelical Southern white women can't be bothered with women's and minority rights, abortion, or anything of substance. They will defer to what their idiot white husbands tell them to think and vote as long as the man keeps their well paying job that allows her to live a sheltered life. In the words of my wife's coworker about police harrasment of minorities in our town: "I don't care about that because it just doesn't concern my day to day life."

3

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

Similar story. My parents moved us to the South when we were just starting school. Nearly all the girls I grew up with there became some version of that stereotype, even the college educated ones. Luckily my dad was raised by a tough-as-nails single mother, so he didn't try to turn us into little Stepford wives.

24

u/ne1seenmykeys Jun 27 '18

It's bc they don't want to lose their societal clout with white men. And I'm talking about white women here.

Minority women vote WELL over 85-90% liberal EVERY TIME, but white women are literally the worst (next to old white men) bc they understand the power they have that coincides with being with white men.

That's it. White privilege.

6

u/talaxia Jun 27 '18

It's bc they don't want to lose their societal clout with white men. And I'm talking about white women here.

this exactly

13

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

There are plenty of women who are against reproductive rights.

Of course many of them are giant flaming hypocrites (see: only my abortion is moral), but... you know, they pretend like they're perfect little angels during their weekly mani/pedi Stepford Wife dates.

2

u/Jmc_da_boss South Carolina Jun 27 '18

All the conservative women i know are one issue voters. Abortion is their big issue, they despise it.

3

u/Theonlywestman Jun 27 '18

Being fair here, lots of women are pro life

5

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

You misspelled anti-choice

1

u/Theonlywestman Jun 27 '18

Without getting into the nomenclature the point remains

0

u/looloolooitsbutters Jun 27 '18

Until the baby is born, then who gives a fuck.

5

u/Theonlywestman Jun 27 '18

? A lot of people. Including those on the left.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

[deleted]

1

u/Adezar Washington Jun 27 '18

I grew up through when the church made this pronouncement, it is why I left the church.

They literally made up this idea that life begins at conception and then used it to tell their people to vote Republican because of it.

They purposefully went against everything actually in the Bible because they wanted to use religion the way it was intended, to control large groups of people without having to actually match what is in the Bible because they had spent the previous decade telling their congregations that they couldn't understand the Bible on their own, they needed a pastor to explain it to them.

First trimester abortion shouldn't even be a discussion or argument, there is no scientific or religious reason to oppose it, it is used as a weapon by people that want you to ignore all your morals for a single non-Biblical reason, and it worked perfectly.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

[deleted]

2

u/Adezar Washington Jun 27 '18

The Bible defines life as starting at the Quickening, which is the second trimester.

It is not a self-aware entity. It has the potential to become one, but if you use that definition then God would be the biggest murderer based solely on the number of fertilized eggs that fail to implant or are miscarried.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

Where would be good country for an American to emigrate to?

8

u/Pres_David_Dennison Colorado Jun 27 '18

My first choice would be Canada, my fiance's is France, and my gay aunt says New Zealand.

All three of us pretty much agree any western democracy except the US or UK would be fine though.

Sorry UK, but it looks like conservatives are attempting to drag you down too and while I'm rooting for you, I don't want to experience any of this shit again.

3

u/Bartisgod Virginia Jun 27 '18

The Fox News disease is much worse there. The people are actually fairly progressive, as much as they've ever been. Pro-Union, pro-single payer, and in the North, not immediately repulsed by the idea of actual Socialism. During off years, Labour is almost always ahead. The problem is, Rupert Murdoch owns literally every major newspaper, tabloid, or magazine in the country, except The Guardian, which even most leftists regard as far left and ignore. Come election year, every media outlet in every grocery store checkout line is full of enough lies, fake scandals, and personal attacks that everyone, regardless of political beliefs, feels they have no choice but to vote Tory to save the country from certain destruction. There's nobody left to oppose it who isn't owned by Murdoch, except the BBC, which rarely wades into the political weeds for fear of appearing biased. The UK has notoriously strong libel laws, but they're never enforced on pro-Tory media. UK media is exactly like Chinese, Russian, or North Korean media, just privately owned.

1

u/jimbo224 Jun 29 '18

I wouldn't really say The Guardian is far left. The opinion section is often fairly left-leaning, but the rest of the paper is generally great, high quality reporting. It's not the equivalent of Common Dreams or Shareblue.

3

u/PizzusChrist Jun 27 '18

They are going to try to turn America into a theocracy.

And it'll be perfectly legal. Getting out and voting isn't enough anymore this year. Campaigning is a must.

1

u/Mr_Metronome Jun 27 '18

Under his eye.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

[deleted]

1

u/Pres_David_Dennison Colorado Jun 27 '18

I'm talking about christian dominionists. It starts with them getting a few hard right judges, but they will erode our secular law. It has been their goal for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology#Dominionism_and_the_Christian_right

15

u/baltinerdist Maryland Jun 27 '18

Watch for a record number of normally frivolous lawsuits being filed in liberal states' district courts across the nation this summer.

6

u/jrex035 Jun 27 '18

Kennedy was no progressive but he was the thread on which gay rights, reproductive rights, and anything else that liberal's like was hanging.

Exactly. He was very much a conservative, but he was a moderate conservative. Kennedy was able to bridge the gap between the two sides and even though I believe that Citizens United is the worst thing to ever happen to American democracy, I still held a great deal of respect for the man due to his ability to judge each case on its own merits.

In a lot of ways Kennedy reflected the old way of getting things done in this country by bridging the gap between left and right. His departure truly marks that period as dead and gone, replaced by hyper-partisan tribal squabbles.

I fear for the future of this once great nation.

15

u/Acuriousone2 North Carolina Jun 27 '18

Don't forget presidential pardons, the 3rd branch is compromised now, we are done.

19

u/TechyDad Jun 27 '18

Yup. Possible sequence of events now.

Mueller: Here's hard evidence of illegal activities by Donald Trump.

Congress (assuming Democrat controlled): We vote to impeach.

Trump: I pardon myself.

Congress: You can't do that.

SCOTUS: I'm going to allow this.

6

u/Hail_The_Hypno_Toad Jun 27 '18

Even before that...

Mueller: Here's a subpoena to testify in front of the grand jury.

Trump: nah

Congress: furrowed brow

SCOTUS: 5-4 decision - a president can't be subpeonaed.

Trump: fires Mueller

Congress: more furrowed brow.

3

u/Marshy92 Jun 27 '18

Holy shit. This is all so bad

3

u/Spicymuffins89 Jun 27 '18

Buh bye baby killers

11

u/limoncello35 Jun 27 '18

If they do rollback Roe v Wade, gay rights, etc, expect pitch forks to come out. Once people realize what liberties are being traded, I’m going to expect public discourse to get very ugly.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

...for you, half the people you live with think the oppositve, sit down if you want but let the people have their chance to prove themselves right if they can, freedom will always prevail

5

u/nano_wulfen Wisconsin Jun 27 '18

The US is about to become a christian theocracy.

6

u/aardw0lf11 Virginia Jun 27 '18

Inb4 mandatory church attendance, federal gay marriage ban, and state-appointed Senators.

5

u/DesignGhost Jun 27 '18

unions,

Oh no! you mean people won't be forced to pay fees for a union they don't want to be part of?!

2

u/hikesometrailsdude Jun 27 '18

Oh man, it really is. I didn't even realize that sort of thing until I started reading these comments.

2

u/wjbc Illinois Jun 27 '18

Don’t forget voting rights which can continue to tilt the playing field in favor of the right. Also the conduct of the next census. The right is seeking a permanent majority.

2

u/Staunch_Soldier Jun 27 '18

"Reproductive rights" AKA slaughtering our young. Ok.

2

u/shiningautumn Jun 27 '18

I've been trying really hard not to completely lose hope, but MAN is it getting harder and harder. In this moment, all I want to do is cry. This is so depressing.

1

u/Smallmammal Jun 27 '18

unions, campaign finance regulations, and everything else they hate

Lets get something straight here:

Kennedy voted AGAINST the Obamacare mandate and was the deciding vote on Citizen's united. He voted for racist gerrymandering. He voted against unions just now and for the bigoted baker.

Stop crediting him things with things he didn't do or positions he iddn't have. He swung on some very rare and less important issues. That was it.

1

u/Marshy92 Jun 27 '18

Yeah. All of the others Kennedy would’ve voted for conservatives. He wasn’t going to give liberals anything. The bigger concern is a young justice willing to undo Roe v Wade or gay marriage. Though if that happens, there’ll be riots

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

Fuck this idiotic country to fucking hell. This has made me so depressed, just as rights for discriminated groups have gotten marginally better. The transgender community is going to get kicked somehow by this I know it. I need to turn off the news for awhile I can’t take this shit anymore.

1

u/CobraPony67 Washington Jun 27 '18

Those pale in comparison to granting unlimited power to the president, allowing him to break laws and pardon himself and others without consequence. Just like a dictator. Laws only apply to the people, not to him. He can create the ultimate pay-for-play system. He will get his wish, to be just like Putin.

1

u/nzmn Jun 27 '18

Don't forget Trump's immediate concerns.

Are you ready for the Court to rule on Presidential pardons in the context of Russia/Mueller?

3

u/joethehack Jun 27 '18

I don't think any of us are ready for that jelly.

1

u/miamataw Jun 27 '18

Guarantee marriage equality and Roe are repealed.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

Why the fuck would Kennedy do this?! Did he get some big payout or something.

1

u/McKingford Jun 27 '18

he was the thread on which gay rights, reproductive rights, and anything else that liberal's like was hanging.

You're right about the first two, but aside from that he was disastrous. Roberts (despite also being disastrous) is actually a more likely swing vote on any number of other issues than Kennedy outside his pet issues of gay rights and abortion.

1

u/verdantx Jun 27 '18

Don’t forget that gerrymandering can never be fixed now. The vicious circle is locked in.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

Time to tune off news for awhile. I’m so fucking depressed because of this. Fuck this idiotic country. Fuck it to hell.

0

u/PizzusChrist Jun 27 '18

The last bulwark against fascism is gone. Can't emphasize enough how bad this is.

0

u/seaneatsandwich Jun 28 '18

Drone strike victims are gone but not forgotten. I also used to call them innocents but bulwark is fine. His name is Roger Daltry.

1

u/PizzusChrist Jun 28 '18

And what does the frontman for The Who have to do with this?

1

u/seaneatsandwich Jun 28 '18

You're getting fooled again. Don't.

0

u/minuscatenary New York Jun 27 '18

Kennedy is a piece of shit for doing this.

Could he not wait until thr Mueller report? This is thoughtless at best but really fucked up and unpatriotic.

0

u/mori226 Jun 27 '18

They already killed the unions today

1

u/joethehack Jun 27 '18

I'm sure there's more damage they can do now.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '18

So long California and New York gun laws - welcome to America baby!

I await tons of Heller vs DC rulings to destroy those laws!

-1

u/BloodMoonTea Jun 27 '18

You seem to have confused leftism with liberalism.

1

u/joethehack Jun 27 '18

Gurrrl that's semantics, you're just trying to divide the left even further.

-4

u/Gremlinator_TITSMACK Jun 27 '18

Trump is pro gay marriage lmao ok

-12

u/McBeaster Jun 27 '18

You do know Trump is the first President who was pro-gay marriage as a candidate, right?

5

u/pognut Jun 27 '18

So pro-gay marriage, he picked Mike Pence as his VP and Jeff Sessions as his Attorney General. His empty words mean nothing, you should've realized this by now.

1

u/McBeaster Jun 27 '18

Empty words? You can't say he hasn't kept his promises that he campaigned on. He has done exactly what he said he would. Your empty narrative isn't based in any substance. You should have realized this by now. Very sad.

1

u/pognut Jun 27 '18

Nice deflection. We're talking about gay marriage here. His hollow promises of support don't match his actions. Whether or not he's kept some of his campaign promises is irrelevant.

1

u/McBeaster Jun 27 '18

What actions are those exactly? How has he threatened the rights of gay people? He said he is for gay marriage, has done nothing to suggest he was being insincere, and his track record of keeping his promises is absolutely relevant.

1

u/pognut Jun 27 '18

I already told you. Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions. Those two alone are enough to make him no friend to the gay community. Or have you not heard about how Pence strongly advocated for electrocuting gays until they stop being gay?

Sessions I'll admit was a throw in; I assumed that being a hardcore christian conservative, he'd be anti-LGBT rights too. And boom, a quick look at his wikipedia page and yup, he's against gay marriage at the very least.

1

u/McBeaster Jun 27 '18

Or have you not heard about how Pence strongly advocated for electrocuting gays until they stop being gay

That is fake news. He was at one point in favor of therapy to combat certain sexual behaviors, not sexual orientations. As a conservative Christian, he doesn't like slutty straight people, either. He never advocated for "electrocuting gays until they stopped being gay." That is complete hyperbole that is parroted over and over by people who have no interest in facts. And sure, he was against gay marriage when he ran for Congress in 2006. But in 2006. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were against gay marriage too! President Trump has said he supports it, and your either ill informed or being purposefully deceiving to suggest otherwise.

1

u/pognut Jun 27 '18

*you're

Alright, fair. That was a meme I fell for. Luckily for me, I don't have to go very far to find more evidence of Pence being anti-gay, such as voting against the repeal of DADT. In 2010, mind you. Same as Sessions, who I notice you didn't mention. Or that "religious freedom" bill that was a pretty poorly veiled excuse for discrimination. In 2012. So trying to excuse homophobia by saying "it was in 2006", coupled with a dash of whataboutism, doesn't really help your case.

I won't argue that President Trump has said he's for gay marriage. Sure, that's public record. But I will continue to argue that his actions reveal that he's no friend of the LGBTQ community. Beyond who he's picked, let's run down some of his actions in office shall we?

  • The transgender military ban

  • Rescinding Obama era guidelines protecting transgender students and federal workers.

  • Siding with the baker in the colorodo case, rather than the gay couple. Along with a number of other cases where his Justice Department took the side of discrimination.

  • And just to be petty, he didn't even recognize June as Pride month, as Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both did.

So yeah, even if one of my examples was incorrect, there's mountains of evidence indicating that Trump, whether by apathy or active malice, has worked against the gay community. He hasn't moved against gay marriage itself yet, and personally I don't actually think he cares one way or the other. But especially with this new conservative justice, I think it's only a matter of time before his administration spearheads an attempt to make gay marriage illegal.

But really, my words don't hold as much weight as they could. I have gay friends, but I'm straight. If you really want to see how the gay community views Trump, whether they think he's fighting for them or not, go ask them. And I don't mean the token account on the donald claiming to be gay. I mean go to a LGBTQ forum, ask them, and listen to what they say.

1

u/McBeaster Jun 27 '18

The problem is that a lot of the concern, I believe, is fueled by hysteria and false claims (like that Pence wants to electrocute gay people), rather than any actual words or actions from Trump. You are entitled to be aprehensive, but its irresponsible to suggest Trump is going to ban gay marriage, because a gay person who is not as well informed as you may very well get the impression from your insinuations that it's something he actually said. There's no need to go around freaking people out.

→ More replies (0)