March 29, 2016
"Another wonderful reason to celebrate that Scalia's worthless corpse lies rotting in the ground along with his radical ideology of bigotry and misogyny."
That just happened to be the newest comment when I read the WaPo news report: "Supreme Court deadlocks over public employee union case; Calif. teachers must pay dues."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
71 comments:
Liberals are nothing but class--all the way down to the soles of their shoes. Dripping with pustulent posturing and prevarication--but then your mileage may vary.
Good. Looks like having 8 on the SC is working well.
One cannot understand 21st century "liberalism" without grasping their seething hatreds for anyone who disagrees with them.
Back in its heyday did the KKK hate black people and Jews more than 21st century liberals hate people who decline to accept their premises? I wonder.
If you believe the purpose of a government department/agency/program is to provide a particular service to the citizenry or subset of the citizenry, then public unions and civil service protections make no sense because government workers/managers are unaccountable to the people because they are impossible to fire. There's a reason the military has no unions or civil service protections.
But if you believe the main purpose of the 20 million non-military local, state, and federal employee positions is to provide jobs to people, then unions and civil service protections make sense. But expect Flint water problems, a nice example of local state and federal incompetence in which the political appointees resign but the workers and managers keep their jobs. Same with the VA or IRS or Chicago police or New York City teachers. These are all predictable problems that merit no more than a shrug of the shoulders. Instead of using lawsuits to make very marginal gains, politicians should present the problem to the people and ask them what they think the primary purpose is: service or jobs?
Civility from liberals is always out of fashion but calls for it's return will arise as the situation merits.
Civility? Bullshit.
Mouldering in the ground.
Clearly this one agrees that we should indulge our emotions rather than govern ourselves and our nation through reason.
It's time for the U.S. to split into two countries in accordance with the divided will of its people. The U.S. has always been an experiment in government, so let's treat it like one.
The first country can have radical redistribution of wealth in the name of fairness, compulsory union membership, speech codes, compulsory artistic expression at the behest of the state, strict controls on election donations except for state-approved in-kind donations from large media corporations, a state monopoly on firearm owning, legal abortion through 10 months of gestation, and freedom of religion in the mind but strict state control of how religious belief can be manifested in public.
The second country will have none of those things. I will move there.
Come to think of it, I guess the world has already tried the first side of the experiment. Unchecked, it produces nations that almost nobody would choose to live in. And yet, here we are, turning the bastion of resistance to those things into a carbon copy of them, at the will of our left-wing overlords.
Bummer. Expect more of the same, if Hillary wins, and picks another Left-wing statist to the Court.
Take that, America. Forcing non-union members to pay union fees is the essence of liberty, because freedom of association.
Big Mike said...
One cannot understand 21st century "liberalism" without grasping their seething hatreds for anyone who disagrees with them.
Back in its heyday did the KKK hate black people and Jews more than 21st century liberals hate people who decline to accept their premises? I wonder.
3/29/16, 11:15 AM
The liberals of yesteryear publicly hated Jews, blacks, and other minorities. The liberals of today still do, they just hide it better and turn their public scorn to conservatives and Republicans.
I will similarly dance in glee when Liberal icons die.
The Left can always be counted on to be empathetic, knowing when not to cross the bounds of decency.
Wonder if the writer of that awful comment about Scalia realizes that he/she too have a worthless corpse sometime in the future.
Had Obama nominated someone it would have been 5-4 against the teachers wanting to express their free will not to join a union.
Blogging the comments section and trolling for outrage.
Very weak effort on a day with so much actual news.
Real class act commenter.
Looks like public unions get another breath of life. The Supreme Court is tilting left, and we're about to see a new era of rolling back individual rights. This will be a dark age for the Court.
People keep revealing themselves. They are unable to even get a clue to their hypocrisy.
The Supreme Court is tilting left, and we're about to see a new era of rolling back individual rights. This will be a dark age for the Court.
Not if Trump wins! Don't give up hope, Brando!
In all seriousness, this election has very significant consequences. I'm amazed how many folks on the conservative/Republican side are so emotional, not logical or rational, in their decision-making.
The objective is to win the Presidential election. The question was, Who on the GOP side, is best positioned to defeat Hillary?
Now that Trump seems to have sewn up the nomination, the question becomes, What does Trump need to do to win the General? I submit that he needs to: (a) tone down his rhetoric, (b) unite and pacify the factions of the GOP, whom he vanquished, (c) focus his ire at Hillary and (d) bone up on substantive policies that he can articulate on the stage.
The primary race is different from the General Election. Trump and his supporters have to make adjustments. Quickly.
"Bigot" and "misogynist" are the easiest things to shout when you don't actually have any counter arguments. Ain't diversity grand?. Everywhere it's tried, it generally makes most people unhappy. And the solution is always the same: more diversity!
Ironically, social justice warriors love diversity of everything except opinions.
Wow. The projection is impressive. The inability to reconcile the burden on taxpayers and benefit to public workers (and [union] corporations) seems to be a progressive condition. However, the disenfranchisement and alienation of people outside of their special interest is counterproductive to their cause. Perhaps Democrats should focus on economic revitalization, reducing debts loads, curtailing mass immigration, and ending abortion rites, rather than redistributive change schemes.
Shouldn't it be "misandry?"
"Take that, America. Forcing non-union members to pay union fees is the essence of liberty, because freedom of association."
Are they receiving pay and benefits that have been negotiated through the efforts of the Teachers' Union? If so, why shouldn't they pay dues? If they object, they should voluntarily take the lower salaries and reduced benefits they would have to accept absent union negotiations. (If they are NOT enjoying the same pay and benefits as union members, then they should not be compelled to pay dues.)
"Now that Trump seems to have sewn up the nomination, the question becomes, What does Trump need to do to win the General? I submit that he needs to: (a) tone down his rhetoric, (b) unite and pacify the factions of the GOP, whom he vanquished, (c) focus his ire at Hillary and (d) bone up on substantive policies that he can articulate on the stage.
The primary race is different from the General Election. Trump and his supporters have to make adjustments. Quickly."
Good luck with that, lol.
Can anybody explain what deference the SCOTUS is owed?
And given their control of the country, will anybody be stunned if violence occurs in regards to them?
Are they receiving pay and benefits that have been negotiated through the efforts of the Teachers' Union? If so, why shouldn't they pay dues?
If you give me a car that I do not want, it would be evil to demand I pay you for it as well.
If they object, they should voluntarily take the lower salaries and reduced benefits they would have to accept absent union negotiations. (If they are NOT enjoying the same pay and benefits as union members, then they should not be compelled to pay dues.)
Guess what...it wouldn't matter. They'd have to do it anyway.
Damikesc: the question is still pertinent. If the non-union teachers are enjoying the same pay and benefits as the union teachers, it is appropriate they pay dues. The question is: are they?
That comment sounds like something a Georgetown law professor would write.
"If you give me a car that I do not want, it would be evil to demand I pay you for it as well."
You can refuse to accept the car. If you accept it knowing there will be a financial obligation on your part, then you have accepted the obligation.
@Todd, you aren't describing the liberals I hung with back in the days of my mis-spent youth.
Would the union allow them to negotiate a higher wage for themselves if they convinced the employers of their worth?
"If they object, they should voluntarily take" It would be nice to live in that country. It's not the one we have. There, if you want certain jobs in certain states, you are forced to pay the union regardless of what you would "voluntarily take." Your voluntariness has nothing to do with it. Because freedom of association.
I'm guessing that anybody in Scalia's family who gives birth can expect a nasty little tweet.
Won't be surprised if violence will be directed at SCOTUS, unfortunately. They have essentially become the primary law giver of the country and are the least democratic branch. If they want to play that role, there are consequences. Sic semper tyrannis. On the plus side, maybe that will result in less presidential assassination attempts.
As to the ruling itself, I am not especially concerned as unions are doomed. Public sector unions as currently configured make no sense and will collapse. Things that cannot go on forever won't. The only concern is how painful the collapse will be.
California is among the worst states on the NAEP tests. Although it has similar demographics to Texas, it's schools are much worse.
Robert Cook "You can refuse to accept the car. If you accept it knowing there will be a financial obligation on your part, then you have accepted the obligation."
So you're on board with such conditions of employment. How very fascistic of you.
If you teach a subject where teachers are in short supply, negotiating for a higher salary than the union would get you should be fairly easy. When I taught in public schools, including a public university, all of the teachers with the same number of years of experience and level of education were paid the same regardless of whether the supply of teachers was scarce or a dime a dozen. There was also no added pay for the quality of your previous experience. When I moved to private education, I was able to negotiate a higher salary based on my area of expertise and the industrial experience I had in addition to my years teaching. Any math or science teacher who isn't for busting up the unions is nuts.
Closed unions are labor monopolies. They have to be--they aren't useful otherwise.
The Left is against monopolies when the monopoly is a producer. Oil monopolies, steel monopolies, rail monopolies, you name it. The titans of industry argued that monopolies were better (more efficient, more technocratically savvy, etc). The nation (and the Left in particular) rejected those arguments and crusaded against monopolies.
Labor monopolies, though...the Left love those. Don't point that out, though, it's rude.
Robert Cook said...
"Take that, America. Forcing non-union members to pay union fees is the essence of liberty, because freedom of association."
Are they receiving pay and benefits that have been negotiated through the efforts of the Teachers' Union? If so, why shouldn't they pay dues? If they object, they should voluntarily take the lower salaries and reduced benefits they would have to accept absent union negotiations. (If they are NOT enjoying the same pay and benefits as union members, then they should not be compelled to pay dues.)
3/29/16, 12:23 PM
Robert Cook said...
Damikesc: the question is still pertinent. If the non-union teachers are enjoying the same pay and benefits as the union teachers, it is appropriate they pay dues. The question is: are they?
3/29/16, 12:32 PM
Robert, there is just so much wrong with that...
I believe they have no choice but to be subject to the union negotiated contract. They are not free to negotiate their own contract. Nor negotiate for their own benefits and pay. Nor bargain for performance based raises. Are subject to the union seniority system and union rules.
What you see as "protection" for the worker, I see as a straight jacket on excellence subjecting great teachers to rules and policies designed to ensure the least qualified and least performing among them are protected from consequences.
Robert Cook said...
If they object, they should voluntarily take the lower salaries and reduced benefits they would have to accept absent union negotiations.
Close, but not quite. If they object, they should have to take whatever benefits they are able to negotiate on their own, be that more or less than what the union negotiates. That is all the teachers are asking for. That is what the unions are fighting against tooth and nail.
Now of course, if every teacher negotiated on their own, on average they would earn less. But plenty of teachers with above average skills, or in subjects where supply of teachers is low, could negotiate more.
This shows that the jerks don't limit themselves to Twitter.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Amadeus 48 said...
Ignorance is Strength.
Hell Yeah!
The unions-particularly the public employee unions-are principally interested in two things: protecting the power, perks, and income of union leaders and protecting the jobs of incumbents. Hence, the seniority system, grievance procedures, and mandatory membership rules. Competence doesn't count for much in deciding who stays or goes. It is easy to see why an incompetent union member with seniority might favor this regime. It is harder to see how competent junior workers, customers, or members of the public benefit.
The Chicago Teachers Union is going to stage a walk-out on Friday for no apparent reason. Could it be for the children? It is hard to see how. It looks more like the union is just flexing its muscles. When it was noted that the walk-out was illegal, the union president said, "They can't arrest us all." The CTU is full of exceptionally incompetent teachers, so they better keep that union strong. Parents who can afford to do so are voting with their feet.
They're only joking until they aren't.
Socialism only works if everyone pays.
If Cook is correct, schools where the teachers are unionized must be the best schools for children!
No? They are the best for teachers?
You don't say . . .
I went to a parochial elementary school run by nuns. The unions have nothing on the nun's organization in terms of ability to control schools.
"If Cook is correct, schools where the teachers are unionized must be the best schools for children!"
You're drawing a forced conclusion that is nowhere suggested in or has anything to do with my remarks, simply to knock down a fabricated strawman. Why bother?
I wonder if Robert Cook also thinks that poor people should pay the same dollar amount of taxes as rich people, since they both enjoy the same mandated government services.
The Left is just sooooooooo generous and forgiving...of lefties.
I happen to like the fact that the Supreme Court is relatively elitist and more isolated from democratic forces. Democratic systems are actually quite unstable and volatile. This is where constitutional monarchs come in handy. The Supreme Court is the closest we have to that system, and I am generally for it.
"I wonder if Robert Cook also thinks that poor people should pay the same dollar amount of taxes as rich people, since they both enjoy the same mandated government services."
Boy, are you misinformed!
Let's just have the second civil war already. It'll be over in a week and the human race will be better off.
Good. Looks like having 8 on the SC is working well.
Oh, I agree, Amanda. If Hillary is elected we probably shouldn't replace Scalia for another five years at least.
Terry said...
If Cook is correct, schools where the teachers are unionized must be the best schools for children!
No? They are the best for teachers?
You don't say .
You're right!!
Let's take, for example, Chicago Public Schools. Oh. Wait. Nevermind.
Is this you, Cook?
In an recording aired on the Iranian television channel's news site, Dr. Kevin Barrett, a former professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is heard saying that the current rash of terror attacks were not perpetrated by Islamists, rather carried out as "false-flag" operations under the auspices of the American and Israeli militaries.
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/US-scholar-blames-Zionists-for-inciting-media-based-Islamophobia-449611
This WaPo distortion is a perfect vehicle to revive the conspiracy . . . Who killed Justice Scalia and why? Damn those $2000/night hookers from Mexico!
Where exactly was Dick Cheney when Scalia died, eh, gadfly?
Rome burns. Was it Maggie Thatcher that said she had outlived the last striking coal miner? Education is ripe for uber -like competition. Where the discipline scales based on the participants not on the providers. Probably Khan academy types and always instrumented students and coaches (teachers). The outsourcing of individual coaching to places like India and Russia, New Zealand and some parts of China, At least until your pTb decides to cut access to the worldwide internet - probably to prevent creating home grown jihadis but more likely to limit this unfair competition that is not only putting the family farms out of business but most of the administrative overhead and foolish testing in the U.S. public schools. Besides meaning the end of the "teachers colleges and certificates required to teach. Oh well, all good pork barrels and patronage jobs must come to an end. When was the last time the U.S. built another half dozen Stanford class schools? China is and they don't work for the coaches yet. Some new schools would certainly lower the cost of a first rate college education. Granted by that time we'll move to bonded certificates' of ability and demonstrated wiliness to demonstrate intellect and judgment while working hard by observation and testing. Will need a different name than "teacher" for this type of professional, likely organized like Doctor's offices, in the professional’s homes, small businesses where the students understand they are guests and must behave well, or they'll be sent to the day care, located at the old school buildings manned/ladied by the laid off California guard staff, with supermax like security portals. Oh boy.
J. Farmer, I readily agree that democracies can be unstable things that devolve into mobs. The three branches were meant to feature the best attributes of various forms of government and the Supreme Court definitely is the monarchist wing. However, the monarchist wing cannot be the primary law giver of the country. That system is historically a proven failure.
Well, if we follow Cook's reasoning, then non-members should only have to pay that portion of the dues which cover those expenses which are directly related to the negotiation process and none other. So, non-members wouldn't have to cover expenses for administrator's salaries and benefits prorated for the part of the year during which they don't negotiate; for political lobbying and expenses; political donations (the big objection); conventions, training, trips, offices, secretaries and the like; work rules and shop steward expenses; grievance hearings, appeals processes etc; anything to do with job actions; insurance issues of any kind and on and on and on. I suspect the actual negotiations probably involve a small portion of a union's activities and expenses, and the union non-members would be quite happy to pay for negotiations and nothing else.
The unions would never, ever go for this. So Cook's argument is of course silly and meaningless, and a fig leaf for the true issue. The genuine argument is whether non-members have to give money to what is essentially a political organization which will then spend that money on political causes that the non-member opposes personally? The 9 CA says yes, and given the tie at the Big Bench, their decision holds until the USSC can re-hear with a full court. Scalia is probably rolling in his grave, not only for the decision allowed to stand, but also for the missed opportunity to again slap down with some vigor and wit the robed wonders at the 9th Circuit, his traditional prey.
Are they receiving pay and benefits that have been negotiated through the efforts of the Teachers' Union? If so, why shouldn't they pay dues? If they object, they should voluntarily take the lower salaries and reduced benefits they would have to accept absent union negotiations. (If they are NOT enjoying the same pay and benefits as union members, then they should not be compelled to pay dues.)
Many might be receiving higher pay and benefits if they were paid on performance rather than a union mandated scale that does not recognize performance.
Are they receiving pay and benefits that have been negotiated through the efforts of the Teachers' Union? If so, why shouldn't they pay dues?
Because generally you don't pay people and organizations who presume to act on your behalf but without your permission.
All unions inevitably devolve into serving only the 20% most incompetent workers they represent. The competent workers don't need the union to keep their job. Only the most incompetent do. Those incompetent workers will therefore spend the most effort into guiding the direction of the union, and without competition, they will inevitably succeed.
At that point, the union then spends the rest of it's time enriching their leadership (often comprised of those same incompetent workers who rose through the ranks) and then funneling coerced dues to Democrats who in turn funnel taxpayer money back to the union bosses.
Cook thinks there's any aspect of all of that which makes the competent workers somehow indebted to the unions.
You're drawing a forced conclusion that is nowhere suggested in or has anything to do with my remarks, simply to knock down a fabricated strawman. Why bother?
For the GOVERNMENT to be involved to REQUIRE membership (or at least paying dues) to the union, there MUST be a public good involved, no? Otherwise, it's the usual cronyism that Dems and Progs always claim to loathe but champion above all else.
Boy, are you misinformed!
How is he misinformed?
Do the poor get to use the streets? Then they should pay exactly what everybody else does.
Boy, are you misinformed!
I was pretty sure that you lacked the integrity to address or acknowledge the inconsistency. Thanks for confirming.
@ Qwinn -
My personal experience working for a municipal government and dealing with a public employee union confirms every word of your post. I was in an open shop state so I didn't have to join but I did have to contribute to the union and I was denied many of the benefits of the union members. The entire focus of the union was about work that had nothing to do with the central responsibilities of the job function (law enforcement) and with protecting the lazy and the corrupt from job actions.
It was like demanding firemen to shovel coal on diesel locomotives.
@Static Ping:
"However, the monarchist wing cannot be the primary law giver of the country."
I agree with this statement, but I don't believe that is an accurate description of what the Supreme Court does. Setting conflicts through a relatively non-democratic process as a Supreme Court decision can be a useful way of putting issues to rest. With the exception of Roe and perhaps a handful of other cases (e.g. Bush v. Gore), Supreme Court decisions do not tend to provoke much public backlash. Outside of news or political junkies, most Americans could not tell you what the Citizens United case was all about, or Kelo or even Obergefell v. Hodges.
p.s. I would also add that according to polling data, of the three branches of government, the judicial branch has historically enjoyed the greatest level of approval and confidence.
Post a Comment