June 27, 2018

Supreme Court holds "that union fees violate 'the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.'"

SCOTUSblog reports on the 5-4 decision in Janus.

Here's the PDF of the opinion.

SCOTUSblog writes:
In reasonably plain English: This is a case about whether government employees who are represented by a union to which they do not belong can be required to pay a fee to cover the costs of collective bargaining. The plaintiff in this case, an Illinois state employee, argued that having to pay the fees violates the First Amendment. Today the Court agreed, ruling for the employee and against the union.
The important idea here is that unions for government employees are different from other unions and that everything they do, including bargaining for wages, is political, because they are making a deal with the government. I want to look at the opinion to see how this idea is discussed.

From the opinion (written by Justice Alito):
In addition to affecting how public money is spent, union speech in collective bargaining addresses many other important matters.... [U]nions express views on a wide range of subjects—education, child welfare, healthcare, and minority rights, to name a few... What unions have to say on these matters in the context of collective bargaining is of great public importance.... Even union speech in the handling of grievances may be of substantial public importance and may be directed at the “public square.” ....

[W]e conclude that public-sector agency-shop arrangements violate the First Amendment, and Abood erred in concluding otherwise. There remains the question whether stare decisis nonethe­less counsels against overruling Abood. It does not.... An important factor in determining whether a precedent should be overruled is the quality of its reasoning....

Abood... did not sufficiently take into account the difference between the effects of agency fees in public- and private-sector collective bargaining. The challengers in Abood argued that collective bargaining with a govern­ment employer, unlike collective bargaining in the private sector, involves “inherently ‘political’ ” speech. The Court did not dispute that characterization, and in fact conceded that “decisionmaking by a public employer is above all a political process” driven more by policy concerns than economic ones....

We recognize that the loss of payments from nonmem­ bers may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term, and may require unions to make adjustments in order to attract and retain members. But we must weigh these disadvantages against the consider­ able windfall that unions have received under Abood for the past 41 years. It is hard to estimate how many bil­ lions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.
From Justice Kagan:
Unlike the majority, I see nothing “questionable” about Abood’s analysis.... The decision’s account of why some government entities have a strong interest in agency fees (now often called fair-share fees) is fundamentally sound. And the balance Abood struck between public employers’ interests and public employees’ expression is right at home in First Amendment doctrine.

267 comments:

1 – 200 of 267   Newer›   Newest»
I Callahan said...

Holy Cow!!!!

Ken B said...

Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let’s sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again!

MikeR said...

Boom

Sebastian said...

Thank you, President Trump.

Fabi said...

What a week!

MayBee said...

That seems very right to me.

Jeff Weimer said...

Stand-by for heavy "stolen seat!!!" rolls.

The screeching will be *epic*. Especially because this goes straight to the heart of the Democrat Party self-licking ice cream cone of funding.

MayBee said...

It's gonna be another good day to stay off Facebook.

Pookie Number 2 said...

Noice.

Kristian Holvoet said...

What's the bottom line? Less public union money for Establishment parties?

MayBee said...

The left will tell us the government they want to control all of our lives cannot be trusted to be good to its employees, so they must have unions (that pay to advocated for bigger government).

The Vault Dweller said...

Governor Rauner in Illinois is going to desperately try to attach himself to this decision as a reason for republicans in Illinois to come out and vote for him in November. He is not well liked by Republicans as he is seen as basically useless.

I can't wait to hear about how this is legalizing theft of union services, since unions are compelled by law to represent these freeloaders. I wonder who championed the law requiring that only Unions could represent certain public sector employees to begin with?

Michael K said...


That seems very right to me.

6/27/18, 9:07 AM
Blogger Jeff Weimer said...
Stand-by for heavy "stolen seat!!!" rolls.

The screeching will be *epic*. Especially because this goes straight to the heart of the Democrat Party self-licking ice cream cone of funding.


Oh, yes. I can hear it now,

AustinRoth said...

What a strongly written majority opinion. That is rare these days.

Abood was “wrongly decided” and overturned, and the majority went so far as to make any dues “opt-in”, so precluding more union shenanigans and subsequent litigation.

@Trumpit - WINNING!!

EDH said...

Is this decision retro-active to past dues collected? Could that bankrupt the unions?

So, what is the left's recourse?

Would this decision preclude the direct government funding of public employee unions? Already some government employees do nothing but union work for their taxpayer funded salaries.

Sebastian said...

So free speech means you can't force people to pay for other people's speech?

What a concept!

Bay Area Guy said...

Hell yeah.

I would like to personally thank Chuck for voting for Trump who appointed Gorsuch to SCOTUS to join as 5th vote to smack the fuck down these Govt unions,

More winning!

Not Sure said...

It's as if Gorsuch brought a large-print version of the Constitution with him to give to Kennedy.

Curious George said...

I hope that Hawaiian judge doesn't overrule them.

dreams said...

This is good news.

Fabi said...

I picked a great week to open my sad trombone franchise!

AustinRoth said...

@Holvoet - less union money to spread around, which they spread 95% to Democrats.

h said...

Is this decision retroactive? I read that in a number of states there are existing or planned civil suits (class action) in which the class of workers who involuntarily paid dues were seeking damages from the unions; and because these were (will be) civil suits, the unions could also be held for attorney costs for the class.

gspencer said...

Janus - YES - YES - YES

I was just down at my local Funerals-Is-Us store. They told me the local Democrat Party had just purchased their entire inventory of black crepe fabric.

The Vault Dweller said...

Blogger EDH said...
Is this decision retro-active to past dues collected? Could that bankrupt the unions?


I'm not sure yet. But I did read that in multiple states pre-emptive class action lawsuits were already on file anticipating a victory in the Janus Case. This is going to be BIG against public sector unions, as it directly affects the only thing Unions care about, which is money.

rehajm said...

I've never bought the free rider argument. What does it matter if someone who didn't pay is advantaged by what you did for yourself?

Compelling dues is extortion.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

No brainer. I suspect all the leftists on the court sided with the government.
Government force is a leftwing deal.

AustinRoth said...

@Vault Dweller - you slander the unions. The also care about creating unnecessary jobs, getting their workers overpaid, and protecting bad employees

Bay Area Guy said...

Maybe Kennedy will retire on Friday. His work is done!

Mac McConnell said...

The Democrat party just lost a big chunk of their political funding.

Browndog said...

Another ruling that should have been 9-0.

The argument the unions have made (successfully) is that they represent everybody--by osmosis. So, pay up!

Ray said...

Based on Wisconsin you will probably see a 30% decrease in union membership and dues.

A huge amount of the dues went to support the Democrats.

This should help in Ca elect a bit saner politicians...

The teachers, prison guards, and nurses unions are so powerful in Ca. Nurses union minimal impact I believe from the ruling.

This also evicerates the attempt to make home health care workers join a union, poor Seiu.

Mike said...

Winning. So. Much. Winning.

The Vault Dweller said...

One unintended side effect of this decision, will be an increase in violence, intimidation, and other thuggish behavior of public sector union members. For some reason union members have a preternatural ability to always feel morally justified in taking whatever type of, normally bad, behavior they chose to when it comes to protecting their perceived political interests. Union members are going to harass, mistreat, and perhaps even comit acts of violence against other employees who don't join the public sector union in the shop. Not only will this spur lawsuits but it will drive more and more people away from the Democrats.

Tom said...

So, can certain jobs be forced to be members of a union? Because that's what will happen next.

Mike said...

Now we will see the WI protests scaled up to infinity as the Left loses its mind in public. Again. But really, if the Right had a self-funding scheme like the DNC-Union money-laundering operation it would have been shut down years ago, not 100 freaking years into the scam. Republicans are slow learners, but this day was inevitable and I'm glad it's here.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

rehajm said...

I've never bought the free rider argument. What does it matter if someone who didn't pay is advantaged by what you did for yourself?

Free-rider is not just about contract negotiation. It is also about grievance resolution: if you are working under a union contract, and you believe your employer violated the terms of the contract, then the union is required to fight for you against the employer to get that resolved, even if you are not a union member.

I'm not saying that makes requiring agency fees from non-members okay: it does not. The proper resolution would be to remove the union's legal duty-to-represent non-union members. If you want representation, join the union. If not, then don't. Problem solved. Unions don't want that solution.

AustinRoth said...

Again, a very strong majority opinion. From SCOTUSBlog:

“The majority also suggests that it would be unconstitutional for a public employer to agree to a contract that gives union members a better deal than nonmembers.”

The Vault Dweller said...

Blogger Tom said...
So, can certain jobs be forced to be members of a union? Because that's what will happen next.


I know that there can be required union membership clauses in private sector places of employment. But I suspect there is again a 1st amendment issue when it comes to public sector employment not just of freedom of speech when it comes to supporting political speech you disagree with, but also freedom of association.

DanTheMan said...

So, the Supremes side with the President. President Roosevelt.

traditionalguy said...

As a Teamster, I propose we immediately organize the abused SCOTUS workers. They need a strong Union Steward in a Scarlet Robe

Get the signs ready. "Court is Unfair. Clerks must be paid by the word."

AustinRoth said...

@DTM wins the thread!

Lance said...

A huge amount of the dues went to support the Democrats.

This should help in Ca elect a bit saner politicians...


Note this doesn't apply to all unions, just government employee unions. Also, California Democrats are flush with cash, they'll be fine.

Where this will hurt Democrats is in purple states such as Pennsylvania and Missouri.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Not tired of winning yet!

5-4,would have gone the other way with a Hillary-appointed SCJ.

AllenS said...

if you are working under a union contract, and you believe your employer violated the terms of the contract

Hire a lawyer.

Kristian Holvoet said...

I hope (and pray it is not forlorn) that this will get the Unions back to trying to help the members rather than simply buying influence. Now that they may have to work to attract and retain members, maybe they can focus more on actual issues pertaining to the members and not SJW virtue signalling.

traditionalguy said...

We can always hope that the Federal Workers go out on strike for many years.

Amadeus 48 said...

"...this day was inevitable..."

Mike--I share your joy, but this was not inevitable. It was hard-fought and narrowly won. There will be a reaction that will blow the lid off here in Illinois. The political model here is a protection racket on the principles of the Mob: "Pay me and nothing too bad will happen to you. don't pay me and I see trouble ahead."

AustinRoth said...

Again from SCOTUSBlog:

“In rejecting the Union’s originalism argument, the majority notes that the union presumably doesn’t want the Court to overrule all the precedent that provides public employees First Amendment protection in other contexts. And, Justice Alito concludes, “We will not engage in this halfway originalism.”

Next up, a lawsuit from the unions asking SCOTUS to invalidate their Janus ruling due to animus.

Bay Area Guy said...

In her dissent, Kagan talks longingly about Abood, the 41-year old decision that upheld compulsory fees for govt unions employees.

The particular govt union? The Detroit public school teacher Union.

Because nothing exemplifies outstanding high school academics as the Detroit public schools over the past 41 years.....

Annie C said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sebastian said...

What's happening? I thought the point of stare decisis was to protect proggy precedent.

YoungHegelian said...

I'm waiting for when the Supreme Court Justices start protesting each other at restaurants & their homes.

Browndog said...

Tom said...

So, can certain jobs be forced to be members of a union? Because that's what will happen next.


It's been happening for a decade. Home healthcare/day care workers were forced to pay union dues in Michigan. It took the courts,a ballot, an election (governor), and several years to rectify it.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

True Conservatives shoulda voted for Hillary Clinton, though, for the good of the nation--that would have prevented tuuurible things like this from happening.

Thanks again, True Conservative elites! You sure know how to call 'em.

M Jordan said...

We win again! We win again! Trump warned us about too much winning but I don’t care! Chuck and Inga lose again! They’re the real losers here! Because we’re the real winners! I like winning! Win, win, win!

*Ah, the joys of tribalism. Thanks identity politics Dems for teaching me thus.

Sebastian said...

It's too late for him to undo all his damage, but now Kennedy can retire with a clearer conscience.

tim maguire said...

It seems completely reasonable to me that if the union is the designated bargainer for all the employees, then all the employees should share the cost of bargaining. The trouble comes in when you consider how easy it is for unions to play jiggery-pokery with the money and shift costs for political activities over into bargaining costs.

It may simply be impossible for unions to fairly collectively bargain for non-union employees.

Browndog said...

So, now we have SC opinion writers using dicta to argue over the meaning of previous dicta.

Ray said...

All government workers are covered.

EDH said...

Annie C,

This is a state case. Janus was an "Illinois child support staffer".

"States and public-sector unions may no longer exact agency fees from nonconsenting employees," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the 5-4 decision.

M Jordan said...

Stock market seems to like this decision. Up 280 as I speak.

The Vault Dweller said...

Blogger Annie C said...
I know I'm not up on the whole union thing, but does this cover only federal workers, or are state and local government employees included?


Well Janus was a State of Illinois employee, and was compelled by law to pay an agency fee to a union even though he did not want to join the union. Presumably this holding would apply to municipal and Federal employees who are similarly situated.

Nonapod said...

Good stuff.

Where are all our wet blankets? The usual suspects are strangely quiet today.

Annie C said...

Thanks all! I hadn't had a chance to look at much of it, but immediately thought of some of my family that are teachers. This is great!

Paul said...

Next thing you know SCOTUS will say illegals caught crossing the border can be just turned around and pushed back across the border. Now that solve a lot of problems!

Eleanor said...

I'll be looking to sign on to one of those class action suits.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Principle: Monopolies are harmful to competition and should be prevented where possible. Closed shop unions are a labor monopoly. Forcing people to give money to the monopoly organization is suspect by itself and since that organization by definition uses the money to advocate for itself and its causes (even "non-political" union spending is done to exercise or increase the power of the union and that itself has political meaning/weight) we ought to be very skeptical indeed.

The fact that the unions in question are a huge part of one party/side's fundraising and political base...that's just a coincidence. But given the ruling, you know, a happy one!

The Vault Dweller said...

but immediately thought of some of my family that are teachers.

If someone is a member of a union they can still be compelled to pay their normal union dues. This holding applied to a person who wasn't part of the union, but was nonetheless required to pay an agency fee to support the union.

gspencer said...

"An important factor in determining whether a precedent should be overruled is the quality of its reasoning"

So why is Roe v. Wade still on the books?

Bay Area Guy said...

We shouldn't even have govt employee unions. JFK (and RFK) had a ongoing grudge match against against Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters, so he authorized the creation of these federal employee unions to get some leverage and support against Hoffa.

Bay Area Guy said...

By the way, I have no beef with private sector unions. I like those guys and they were a necessary check against corporate power in the 1900s. Not so relevant today, but that's a separate issue.

Browndog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LarsPorsena said...

The Left is always crying about getting the money out of politics.
This is a good start.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Kristian said: I hope (and pray it is not forlorn) that this will get the Unions back to trying to help the members rather than simply buying influence.

Truly. If the unions had stuck to their original purpose of representing the interests of the members with their employers. Job issues such as safety, working conditions, pay schedules.....none of this would be happening.

Instead the Unions force money from members and then use the bulk of it to advocate for political causes outside of the venue of the "job" which are against the members' own views. In essence taking my money to activate against me.

The Unions became a support group for ONE political party at the expense of the members.

Unions actually had a real and valid purpose at one time. However, with labor laws, OSHA and other rules to safeguard the workers, the Unions have outlived their purpose.

This was an excellent decision. Too bad it was only 5-4.

Still not tired of winning!

Browndog said...

I'll say it again-

Union have become nothing more than a clearinghouse for DNC money laundering.

MountainMan said...

“We shouldn't even have govt employee unions.”

Tennessee doesn’t, thank God, except for teachers, and they are very restricted. All,other public employee unions are illegal. Where I live, the teachers rejected unionization. End result? Low taxes, efficient and effective local government, great schools, no corruption.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Mike said...Now we will see the WI protests scaled up to infinity as the Left loses its mind in public. Again. But really, if the Right had a self-funding scheme like the DNC-Union money-laundering operation it would have been shut down years ago, not 100 freaking years into the scam. Republicans are slow learners, but this day was inevitable and I'm glad it's here.

You left out a link in that chain, though: it's DNC-public sector union money government employees and so on.
Dems get public sector union $, then motivate public sector workers by promising more $ for government employees, then some of that salary money goes to the unions, then they donate to Dems...

Oh, and the taxpayers get the bill, naturally. In fact they pay at least twice: by funding the .gov salaries and by getting bad service/worse-than-otherwise output from the union/Dem-protected workers.

Matthew Sablan said...

Thanks Gorsuch!

Kristian Holvoet said...

Also, Dems + McCain (BIRM) : Money in politics is bad! Citizens United it bad! Also, Janus is bad because unions will have less money to give us!

SGT Ted said...

Government employee Unions are a tax dollar money laundering scheme for the Democrat Party. We should all be glad the government has put a dent in their criminal scam that defrauds the tax paying public.

Seeing Red said...

Those greedy bastards in Illinois tried to unionize mothers, grandmothers, and family who stay home and take care of disabled children.

Seeing Red said...

Governor Rauner in Illinois is going to desperately try to attach himself to this decision as a reason for republicans in Illinois to come out and vote for him in November. He is not well liked by Republicans as he is seen as basically useless.

We live in Madiganistan. He was Dead Man Walking.

Pritzker is worse.

Michael K said...

I've never bought the free rider argument.

I think it made more sense in private unions where politics was less the focus and member benefit was the issue.

I was a member of the Teamsters when I was 16. It was an education to attend a strike vote.

Unions actually had a real and valid purpose at one time. However, with labor laws, OSHA and other rules to safeguard the workers, the Unions have outlived their purpose.

They also lost track of economics. Germany has put unions on the boards of the big employers, which may cause more rational thought.

Unfortunately, it also resulted in bad policy when east and west Germany united. East Germany could have been a low cost manufacturing source while the work force got up to speed. The unions blocked that and delayed the German economy for ten years.

Also cost me some money as I had invested in Germany,

Read "Crash Course" on how the UAW resisted efforts to improve US auto quality.

DanTheMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AustinRoth said...

There is no love from Ann for the Florida v Georgia ruling.

DanTheMan said...

>>It seems completely reasonable to me that if the union is the designated bargainer for all the employees, then all the employees should share the cost of bargaining

It seems completely reasonable to me that if the union is the designated bargainer for all the union employees, then all the other employees should be able to opt out of joining and lose any benefits of union membership.

Browndog said...

If the concept of unions seem to have a taste of communism in principle....there is a reason for that. The first worker strikes in the industrial age that created unions were instigated by communists.

buwaya said...

Public union money is no longer the factor it once was.
Political funding for Democrat candidates is mainly in the hands of billionaires these days, the Soros and Stayers (just to name some well known examples) and their kind.

Recent by-elections show this very well, local elections so often being richly funded by out of state deep pockets.

Fabi said...

An opinion headline from the NYT -- "Workers Must Get Radical to Fight Back Against Janus" but the html link reads -- "janus-supreme-court-worker-militant-action-unions".

Radical. Militant. Fight.

Molly said...

Commenter at WaPo apparently completely miss the fact that this decision applies only to public sector unions. So there is a lot of discussion about good things private sector unions have done.

When a private sector union negotiates with an employer, the two sides have differing objectives: the union wants higher pay and better conditions; the employer wants to keep production costs low for the benefit of company owners. But when a public sector union negotiates with an employer, the two sides have objectives that (frequently) coincide: the union wants higher pay and better working conditions, and also more union dues to spend on elections to achieve more electoral power to keep in office politicians who are friendly to public sector unions; the employers want union support for continued electoral success which comes from union dues and union friendliness, which comes from higher pay and better working conditions.

So the private sector negotiating dynamic is completely different from the public sector negotiating dynamic.

rhhardin said...

There shouldn't be public unions at all. The other side of the bargaining table is in bed with the union side, owing to profit not deparating them.

Birkel said...

BOOM!

Kristian Holvoet said...

From the comments at instapundit:

It will be a great day in America when the military gets all the hardware it needs, and public employee unions have to hold a bake sale to buy a Congressman.

Seeing Red said...

Too bad union hierarchy won’t be rich anymore.

Browndog said...

Alito's decision in Janus also forecloses union opt-out presumptions. Under Janus, employees must clearly and affirmatively opt-in to paying agency fees before the union can enlist the employer to collect them.

This is very important. When workers were finally allowed to opt out in Michigan, the unions put such restrictions on when and how, it was virtually impossible.

Birches said...

Trump just won reelection.

exhelodrvr1 said...

George Will must be really pissed!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Kagan

"The decision’s account of why some government entities have a strong interest in agency fees (now often called fair-share fees) is fundamentally sound."

Because? Oh right- Because reasons.

Nonapod said...

Political funding for Democrat candidates is mainly in the hands of billionaires these days, the Soros and Stayers (just to name some well known examples) and their kind.

As we've seen, these crony capitalist modern day robber barons don't always achieve the outcomes they desire. But they're long term players with no shortage of patience, determination, and resources. Sometimes it seems like history is a long term war between the nobility and the peasantry, or in modern terms, elites and the deplorables.

exhelodrvr1 said...

1) Does this apply to teachers' unions?
2) What is the typical percentage of someone's pay that goes towards union dues?

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Alito

"The challengers in Abood argued that collective bargaining with a govern­ment employer, unlike collective bargaining in the private sector, involves “inherently ‘political’ ” speech. The Court did not dispute that characterization, and in fact conceded that “decisionmaking by a public employer is above all a political process” driven more by policy concerns than economic ones....

...
But if money is flowing to DEMOCRATS via government unions, then it's "sound"... sayeth the progressives on the court. of course they do.


Chuck said...

Nonapod said...
Good stuff.

Where are all our wet blankets? The usual suspects are strangely quiet today.


If you are thinking that I am one of the usual wet blankets, don't hold your breath. I love this result. Long overdue.

I need to read the opinion, but my admittedly dusty recollection of Abood is that it was a decision that had been badly -- progressively badly -- misused over the years. And while Abood might no have been so bad standing alone, it became precedent for a whole world of bad decisions throughout the 80's, 90's and 00's.

No matter; it is dead now.

Watch how the liberal media spins this decision; as if it were unpleasant legislation to be repealed in the next term. They tried to spin Citizens United that way. It is a kind of spinning that they never, ever apply to a case like Obergefell. Or Roe v Wade.

Chuck said...

exhelodrvr1 said...
1) Does this apply to teachers' unions?
2) What is the typical percentage of someone's pay that goes towards union dues?


It sure as hell should! Abood was a teacher union case. (Detroit Federation of Teachers.)

Ignorance is Bliss said...

AllenS said...

Hire a lawyer.

That should be your recourse. However, legally, unions have a duty-to-represent all workers at the company for which the union negotiated the contract. They are legally obligated to incur that expense. Thus the free-rider problem. The correct resolution would be to change the law, such that a non-union member is not covered by the contract, and the union has no duty to represent.

Mike said...

So, can certain jobs be forced to be members of a union? Because that's what will happen next.

Next? National Right-to-Work legislation. Then the party with no ideas, no policies and few desirable candidates will also be the party out of money. Democrats are already trailing way behind Republican fundraising, what with their corrupt DNC leadership and all. And they now have a rule that only Democrats can run for the President as a Democrat (I really thought they would invoke this in 2015 but they were too stupid, being WITH-HER and all). So we've got internal turmoil in the failing DNC-Media complex.

No one trusts the DNC-Media and no one wants to fund the DNC-Media. SAD!

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Alito

"We recognize that the loss of payments from non-members may cause unions to experience unpleasant transition costs in the short term, and may require unions to make adjustments in order to attract and retain members. But we must weigh these disadvantages against the consider­able windfall that unions have received under Abood for the past 41 years. It is hard to estimate how many bil­lions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment. Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

Alito is a rock star. Soon to be trashed by the hack press and the mind-numbed Soros bots.

Kristian Holvoet said...

More money in working class paychecks. Trump wins again.

readering said...

Other 5-4 decision of the day (last announced for term) is Florida v Georgia, water rights dispute for river flowing south.

Breyer writes majority for Georgia. Thomas the dissent for Florida. He's only justice with roots in one of the states-georgia.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Coulnd't have said it better, DBQ.

Chuck said...

exhelodrvr1 said...
George Will must be really pissed!


On February 23 (I did have to look up the date; but I recalled the column), Will's column for the Post was headlined, "A Supreme Court case could be the biggest threat to unions in years. Good."


Do you feel at all silly, for that comment?

Jersey Fled said...

In economics, these are called "externalities". It means that some people are benefited either positively or negatively by the decisions of others, even though they are not parties to the transaction. For example, a teacher may be benefited due to the fact that a new housing development increases the school population, which increases the need for teachers and principals, and she is promoted. She paid nothing for the housing development, but she benefited positively. Conversely, a large employer may leave town, causing teachers to be layer off. This is a negative externality.

We are impacted by externalites, positive and negative, every day of our lives. Half of U.S. households pay no federal income tax,yet they get the benefit of taxes paid by others. There is no practical way to craft a system to make it all come out even - i.e. that we all pay for every benefit we get from every source and are compensated for every action taken others that causes us harm. This is where the "free rider" argument breaks down.

Externalities are just facts of life. Get over it, government unions. You had a great scam going for years where you elect people who gave you stuff that you did not deserve. And that someone else had to pay for. A nice externality.

Don't cry now when the worm has turned.

Browndog said...

"The decision’s account of why some government entities have a strong interest in agency fees (now often called fair-share fees) is fundamentally sound."

Yea. It's fundamental communism.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Kagan sounds like a silly hack. "Abood struck between public employers’ interests and public employees’ expression is right at home in First Amendment doctrine."

"First Amendment doctrine"?

What part of the first amendment allows the government to force an extraction of funds from people who are not interested in participating in speech that does not represent them?

robother said...

"Sometimes it seems like history is a long term war between the nobility and the peasantry, or in modern terms, elites and the deplorables."

The nobility had and has no problem with a peasantry that knows its place. It''s the people of the burgs, the rising middle class merchants and artisans whose energy and appetites for freedom and a say in their own political governance that are truly deplorable.

Peasants that know their place can be found in abundance in the Southern hemisphere. Hence the greatest urgency in importing them en masse to Western Europe and North America.

Art in LA said...

I never understood why public employees need a union since they are negotiating against a benevolent government who is supposed to protect its people in the first place ...

Ignorance is Bliss said...

tim maguire said...

It seems completely reasonable to me that if the union is the designated bargainer for all the employees, then all the employees should share the cost of bargaining.

That makes sense for some things. For example, if the union is negotiating a 5% pay increase, that helps all employees, so all employees should cover the cost.

But what happens when the union includes seniority rules in the negotiation, while still requiring the new employee to pay for that negotiation? What about the well-above-average teacher who would like merit pay having to pay the union to negotiate a contract that requires all pay to be based on years-of-service?

In these cases employees are being required to pay the union to negotiate against their interests.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

George Will might be a never-Trumper, and sometimes a real annoyance, but he's still a conservative who gets the big issues.

Requiring everyone to love and adore Trump is stupid. Adoring political leaders blindly should be confined to the left.

Nonapod said...

I didn't, Chuck. I haven't read everything you've written on this blog, but you appear to be fairly consistent in your postions so I didn't assume you'd necessarily be unhappy by this ruling.

rehajm said...

It is also about grievance resolution: if you are working under a union contract, and you believe your employer violated the terms of the contract, then the union is required to fight for you against the employer to get that resolved, even if you are not a union member.

A most valid point. If the force behind the requirement is a law it would now seem unions have an excellent court case to remove that requirement.

If the force behind the requirement is a line item in a union negotiated contract...well duh!

Drago said...

Dickin: "George Will might be a never-Trumper, and sometimes a real annoyance, but he's still a conservative who gets the big issues"

George Will publicly advocated for a 50 state democrat landslide win in 2016.

There will never be any way to retract that.

If Will had gotten his way, the democrats would have consolidated an absolute stranglehold on power and institutions forever.

But only forever.

There would never have been a Gorsuch...nor any conservative policies. We would be well on our way to Maduro-land.

The good news for Will is that he is still invited to all the establishment cocktail parties in DC and doesn't have to address uncomfortable questions from his leftist inquisitors there, as that's what really matters.

Seeing Red said...

That should be your recourse. However, legally, unions have a duty-to-represent all workers at the company for which the union negotiated the contract. They are legally obligated to incur that expense. Thus the free-rider problem. The correct resolution would be to change the law, such that a non-union member is not covered by the contract, and the union has no duty to represent.

There’s an incentive to join.

Browndog said...

. However, legally, unions have a duty-to-represent all workers at the company for which the union negotiated the contract. They are legally obligated to incur that expense. Thus the free-rider problem. The correct resolution would be to change the law, such that a non-union member is not covered by the contract, and the union has no duty to represent.

This is BS.

Seeing Red said...

Free-rider is not just about contract negotiation. It is also about grievance resolution: if you are working under a union contract, and you believe your employer violated the terms of the contract, then the union is required to fight for you against the employer to get that resolved, even if you are not a union member.


The unions have to become more nimble. There are some union members that need to be fired.

Start mining the NYC teachers stories. They couldn’t fire this dude so he sat in a room working on his other job of real estate mogul.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

It's silly to call George Will a leftist.

I really don't care if George Will was wrong about Trump. Don't. Care. and I still like Jonah Goldberg, too.

If you want to talk about these "traitors" as if you are hollywood dissing Roseanne for her unforgivable offense - you go for it Drago. I find it boring.

traditionalguy said...

A Union is a legal representation. That is the Lawyer/client dynamic. But this lawyer is paid eternally whether he wins or loses and pays himself huge fees with your Due to him.

So what this decision does is let clients chose the better lawyers.

Doug said...

Bay Area Guy said...
Maybe Kennedy will retire on Friday. His work is done!

Hope he doesn't plan his retirement party at The Red Hen!

Drago said...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home: "It's silly to call George Will a leftist."

Which is why I did not call Will a leftist.

But I did make note of Will's call for a national wipeout of Trump.

I'm sorry if that flummoxed you.

johns said...

This would be a good time for Trump to say something outrageous in order to distract the media from concentrating on the SCOTUS ruling. If Trump really does play four dimensional chess, this is the test to see if his tweets are intended to distract.

Jack Wayne said...

I think the biggest benefit to the USA is that states can finally make the attempt to get public sector pensions under control.

pacwest said...

This doesn't stand alone in recent developments. Trump's EO that makes it easier to fire a government employee (by a factor of 6), and limit union reps ability to do union work on government time (1/4 of previous) make a difference too. Government workers may have to actually, you know, work.

Drago said...

Dickin: "If you want to talk about these "traitors" as if you are hollywood dissing Roseanne for her unforgivable offense - you go for it Drago. I find it boring."

I never called Will or Goldberg "traitors". In fact, I have never called any Never Trumpers or simply Trump opponents "traitors".

Nor would I.

So I find your use of quotation marks......interesting.

Fabi said...

"The congressional Republican caucuses must be substantially reduced. So substantially that their remnants, reduced to minorities, will be stripped of the Constitution’s Article I powers that they have been too invertebrate to use against the current wielder of Article II powers."

George Will penned this about the upcoming midterms. This was also penned by no conservative ever.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Chuck,
"Do you feel at all silly, for that comment?"

Not at all. Will is asking for everyone to vote Democrat in 2018. And the court decisions this week display more forcefully than anything to this point the benefit of Trump's election, which Will has frequently expressed regrets about. He would rather have a 5-4 Clinton court than a 5-4 Trump court. He clearly has put the NeverTrump agenda ahead of conservative policies.

Drago said...

Careful Fabi. Dickin is likely to begin assigning quotes to you.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Drago - I'm not flummoxed and I appreciate your Trump enthusiasm. Trump enthusiasm doens't bother me, but people on the right who are not enthused by Trump, or his style, do not bother me either.

alan markus said...

Nonapod said...
Good stuff.

Where are all our wet blankets? The usual suspects are strangely quiet today.


They were called to an emergency rehearsal of the Sousaphones Against Hate band. A song about this has to be added to the repertoire that they had prepared for when they crash the Foxconn groundbreaking in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin tomorrow. President Trump may be there, as will be Governor Scott Walker.

Operation: Shake the Ground!, a coalition press release states, is expected to bring together 40 liberal organizations, including Sousaphones Against Hate, a big brass-playing ensemble of lefties marching against oppression with the motto “Resist and Protest.”
The coalition features a “diverse group” of liberals, “with a core team made up of landowners and residents of Mount Pleasant, Racine and Kenosha; students and youth leaders; environmentalists; civil rights advocates; interfaith communities; transportation advocates; public school teachers; UW professors; union workers; farmers; and indigenous leaders,” according to the press release.


Nothing says oppression quite like an advanced technology manufacturer investing billions of dollars into southeast Wisconsin and creating tens of thousands of family-supporting jobs.

SGT Ted said...

Victor David Hanson has the right of it in regard to the Conservative pundit establishments view of Trump.

"Obama defies the Constitution but sounds ‘presidential.’ Trump follows it but sounds like a loudmouth from Queens."

Freder Frederson said...

However, with labor laws, OSHA and other rules to safeguard the workers, the Unions have outlived their purpose.

Except this administration seems hellbent on invalidating all these protections, as well as destroying environmental laws.

Kristian Holvoet said...

Re: Grievances, discipline, termination and such. With Civil Service protections ubiquitous, why are disciplinary and grievance policies part of the collective bargaining?

Drago said...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home: "Drago - I'm not flummoxed and I appreciate your Trump enthusiasm."

Cruz enthusiasm, which migrated to Trump when he won.

And then additional enthusiasm when Trump delivered conservative governance (which surprised me happily)

I never called Will a leftist, nor a traitor.

I simply noted what he was calling for.

You ought to make note of that yourself.

SGT Ted said...

George Will etc aren't traitors; They are snobs.

Achilles said...

Chuck said...
exhelodrvr1 said...
George Will must be really pissed!


On February 23 (I did have to look up the date; but I recalled the column), Will's column for the Post was headlined, "A Supreme Court case could be the biggest threat to unions in years. Good."


Do you feel at all silly, for that comment?


He shouldn’t.

It is clear now that Will doesn’t believe a single word he says just like the rest of the people in DC.

We are getting everything he said he wanted and he called for people to vote for democrats.

Will is a liar and a tool who’s only job is to mislead republican voters into giving power to democrats.

The only thing Will cares about is power for his globalist masters.

tim maguire said...

Dan and Ignorance, you both respond to my post by fundamentally changing what my post is about. Which is fine, if you want. But at least recognize that's what you are doing. These aren't responses to me so I don't see the point in quoting me at the top as though they were.

Birkel said...

As I understand matters, Father Time remains undefeated.
RBG is 85 but my money is on Father Time to win before Trump leaves office in 2025.
Breyer will be 80 in August so he's a favorite to outlast Trump.
But will Breyer stick around if RBG leaves and is replaced by another conservative for a significant number of 6-3 losses?

One wonders if Sotomayor and Kagan are looking forward to the number of dissents they will write over the next 30 years.

Anybody who would sacrifice more conservatives on the Court to teach Trump and His Deplorables a lesson is committed to the Leviathan State.

And that includes George Will.

Drago said...

The more conservative results Trump delivers, the more the Never Trumpers leave the republican party and call for more democrats to be elected.

Because they are the "True Conservatives".

And "principled".

MayBee said...

The correct resolution would have been for public employee unions to stop using their members hard-earned money for one-party political contributions.

Drago said...

Sorry Dickin, but you are going to have generate far more effective fake quotes if you want to sanitize Will's clear embrace of broad democrat political victories.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Drago - OK - i thought all this time you have/did use words like traitor regarding Will and Jonah. Certainly "never-Trumpers" which to my ear is tantamount to "traitor" -, but not traitor. my bad.


Fabi - thanks for the link to that Will piece. Will is a dickhead, in that piece, but sometimes he is still on the right side of history. Not here.

SGT Ted said...

"Except this administration seems hellbent on invalidating all these protections, as well as destroying environmental laws."

Reducing regulation within the boundaries of those laws is not destroying them. He simply reversed Obamas dictatorial decrees that would not win popular support were they to go through Congress. Tell us again how you support The People yet are cool with one man making the rules absent The Peoples approval. Oh, that's right, that part is bullshit.

This sort of constant hyperventilating drama queenery is why Trump got elected.

Seeing Red said...

Except this administration seems hellbent on invalidating all these protections, as well as destroying environmental laws.

ALL these protections, every damn one!

We’re going backwards to Dickensian England!

Some environmental laws deserve to be destroyed. They’re stupid. See California.

Drago said...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home: "Drago - OK - i thought all this time you have/did use words like traitor regarding Will and Jonah. Certainly "never-Trumpers" which to my ear is tantamount to "traitor" -, but not traitor. my bad"

Amazing.

I've never used "traitor" to describe any of these guys, yet there it is.

As noted above, these "principled" "true conservatives" are getting more conservative governance than they could have imagined in their wildest dreams yet almost ALL their energy is targeted towards destroying the mechanism to deliver it.

Some of us can't help but notice that.

MayBee said...

To me, it seems absurd a government can force you to pay a private entity so that you can have a job with that government.

Michael K said...

We’re going backwards to Dickensian England!

Boy, I see the insanity is spreading !

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Drago - I just said you use "never Trumper" not "traitor" - my bad.

Fabi said...

Drago -- as long as he corrects any errors in my spelling or punctuation.

SGT Ted said...

"To me, it seems absurd a government can force you to pay a private entity so that you can have a job with that government."

It's a criminal abuse and subversion of the Public Trust that puts party over country. It's part of the DNC criminal conspiracy meant to gain and preserve power.

Drago said...

MayBee: "To me, it seems absurd a government can force you to pay a private entity so that you can have a job with that government."

It only seems absurd because you do not share their strategic objectives......

The Rule is simple: If it advances leftist governance and the size of the government over the individual the left/libs/LLRAllies are for it.

No other questions, constitutionality, logic, reason, fairplay, etc, even enter the equation.

Drago said...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home: "Drago - I just said you use "never Trumper" not "traitor" - my bad."

I know.

Noted.

Moving on.

Browndog said...

Kristian Holvoet said...

Re: Grievances, discipline, termination and such. With Civil Service protections ubiquitous, why are disciplinary and grievance policies part of the collective bargaining?


It's union propaganda. To this day it's still quite effective. Many still believe that the only thing standing in the way of slave labor is unions.

Drago said...

SGT Ted: "It's a criminal abuse and subversion of the Public Trust that puts party over country. It's part of the DNC criminal conspiracy meant to gain and preserve power."

It's all just a tax money laundering scheme for the democrats.

Their wails of injustice are simply there to hide the corrupt nature of their enterprise.

DanTheMan said...

>>Dan and Ignorance, you both respond to my post by fundamentally changing what my post is about.

I read your post to be your opinion about what was completely reasonable. So I posted my opinion of what would be completely reasonable.

I had no intent to misrepresent what you said.

>>It may simply be impossible for unions to fairly collectively bargain for non-union employees.

This seems to me to be unarguably a true statement. Unions should have no obligation to any non-member.



Michael K said...


Public union money is no longer the factor it once was.
Political funding for Democrat candidates is mainly in the hands of billionaires these days, the Soros and Stayers (just to name some well known examples) and their kind.


I assume this is crony capitalism at work but I am still puzzled by Soros' motives.

How does he plan to make money from this? Short civilization ?

Drago said...

Althouse, what do you think of Kagan asserting the conservatives on the Supreme Court are "weaponizing the First Amendment"?

That just might make an excellent blog post.

I would have sent you a private note about it but I know LLR Chuck considers that his private communications pathway with you and I wouldn't want to clutter it up....

Achilles said...

SGT Ted said...
George Will etc aren't traitors; They are snobs.

They clearly don’t believe a single word they say.

They only support republicans like Bush and McCain who gave Republican voters entitlements ever growing government free trade and never ending wars.

The same goes for many republican congressmen/women.

The best thing Trump has done is take the Republican Party back from the traitors.

Chuck said...

No Achilles; the problem presented by Will is that while he continues to adhere to conservative orthodoxy, he also continues to write about the personal toxicity of Donald Trump.

And so the claim against Will cannot be that he is no longer a conservative; the claim is that any personal disloyalty to Trump is what matters.

Assuredly, George Will would never suggest a housecleaning of a Republican congressional majority unless he felt that it had been poisoned by Trump.

The smart conservatives who disagree with Will tactically on this can write those opinions, and I have seen some of them. They are very credible. As credible as Will's loathing of Trump personally. That is a debate on issues and tactics.

But in TrumpWorld as represented by the Althouse commentariat, it's all about personal loyalty to Trump. And personal attacks on anyone who dares to criticize Trump.

You are literally the sort of people who, if Trump were to shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, it would not cause you to abandon the God Emperor. And you're too stupid to even understand what an insult it was to you, when Trump said it.

Krumhorn said...

The Never-Trumpers have to acknowledge that regardless of their antipathy to Trump, his policy successes were achieved in spite of their opposition. Seriously! Sometimes you just have to hold your nose when you pull the lever.

The issues are too important to risk failure by quibbling about the agents who advance us to success. Imagine where we would be if the Never-Trumpers had managed to get Hillary elected.

- Krumhorn

Ignorance is Bliss said...

tim maguire said...

Dan and Ignorance, you both respond to my post by fundamentally changing what my post is about. Which is fine, if you want. But at least recognize that's what you are doing. These aren't responses to me so I don't see the point in quoting me at the top as though they were.

I make no claims that I was responding to the main point of your post, which is why I did not quote your main point. I was responding to a particular statement that you made, which is why I quoted it. I don't believe I changed the meaning of that statement by taking it out of context, or in any other way treated it ( or you ) unfairly.

While I believe your statement was accurate ( since it only addressed how something seemed to you ), I believe that the way it seemed to you is not reasonable, given the examples I cited. Thus, my comment was a response to you. Not about your main point, just about a statement you made.

DanTheMan said...

>>With Civil Service protections ubiquitous, why are disciplinary and grievance policies part of the collective bargaining?


In what sense is a public sector union "bargaining"? Where is the give and take?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...
Drago - I'm not flummoxed and I appreciate your Trump enthusiasm. Trump enthusiasm doens't bother me, but people on the right who are not enthused by Trump, or his style, do not bother me either.

6/27/18, 10:45 AM

I fully understand why some people on the right don't like Trump. I found him personally grating for a long time, even though I voted for him. Brash New York City blowhards do not appeal to me.

But I've liked what he has done. And I think a milder, more polite personality would not be able to stand up against the barrage of hatred coming from the left.

So I've moved from very reluctant Trump voter to solid Trump supporter.

If you dislike Trump so much you think Hillary would have been preferable - knowing exactly what Hillary is and how she would have conducted herself as president -- you've put personality ahead of principles, which is exactly what NeverTrumpers accuse Trump voters of doing. At least a few of them - Ben Shapiro comes to mind - try to be honest enough to give Trump credit where credit is due, while continuing to criticize his style and tweets. Others have forfeited any respect they once had among Trump voters as they have revealed themselves to be faint hearts, hypocrites and Deep State fans masquerading as conservatives.

Drago said...

"Steve Schmidt Republcan" Chuck: "And so the claim against Will cannot be that he is no longer a conservative; the claim is that any personal disloyalty to Trump is what matters."

Any attachment Will continues to have with conservative orthodoxy is irrelevant.

All that matters is when the chips are down and it's conservative governance or leftist governance on a scale that would destroy the nation, Will went with the left.

And still does.

But yeah, he is still happy to pen an article or two here and there (that matter not at all) espousing conservative governance.

LOL

Gee, thanks George. You don't mind if we keep fighting the left in the trenches though while you are busy in your office in front of your computer are you?

MayBee said...

Unions should have no obligation to any non-member.

Why should any government (or private business) have any obligation to a union?

exiledonmainstreet said...

And yes, today's ruling is delightful news.

And Chuck, this would not have happened without Trump.

Drago said...

exiled: "But I've liked what he has done. And I think a milder, more polite personality would not be able to stand up against the barrage of hatred coming from the left"

This.

This is what it took to beat Hillary and her entire media/government agency cabal.

But it makes some on the right.....uncomfortable.

You want uncomfortable? Send your kids to schools overrun with MS13 members.

But Will and his cohort, as Peggy Noonan so aptly captured, don't actually have to live with the consequences of their policy decisions.

Nope.

That is left to the deplorables of both parties.

Not that Will cares about that one whit. Nope. He doesn't like Trump's style, and if that means the gutting of America to get rid of it, well, so be it.

Nonapod said...

If there's one thing I've learned from Donald Trump, it's flexibility. There was I time I considered myself an ideologue. But effective solutions that are actually workable in the real world can often be hamstrung by a blind, strict adherence to an ideology.

Finding optimal solutions to complex problems often requires unconventional approaches, and that requires flexible thinking, a willingness to take risks that may anger or confuse some people (even those who may oestensibly be on your side sometimes).

Browndog said...

Drago said...

Althouse, what do you think of Kagan asserting the conservatives on the Supreme Court are "weaponizing the First Amendment"?


I'll just leave this here:

"The law is reason free from passion." Aristotle

"Hell has no fury like a Liberal denied the outcome they feel is right." Sotomayor

exhelodrvr1 said...

"the claim is that any personal disloyalty to Trump is what matters."

LOL.

No one says that conservatives need to like Trump personally, or like everything Trump does. But when they would rather that Hillary be President, then IMO they are no longer conservatives. They are Personalitives.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Maybee The correct resolution would have been for public employee unions to stop using their members hard-earned money for one-party political contributions.

This. A thousand times this.

If the Unions had stuck to their original purpose there would not have been a lawsuit.

However, once the unions had accomplished their original purpose there would be not that much for them to do other than routine maintenance of relations between employer and employee.

The main reasons for the Unions today is to support ONE political party, advocate for political policies that have nothing to do with the job......and...Oh by the way....scoop up huge amounts of money for the Union "Officials". Graft and corruption at the expense of those forced to subsidize things that are antithetical and even harmful to their own interests.

Not Sure said...

"Free riding" has to do with benefits that are shared commonly. It has nothing necessarily to do with individual grievances. If there's an instance of, say, abusive behavior by a supervisor toward a particular employee, there's surely a grievance process within the bureaucracy. An individual can represent herself, or hire an advocate. If the union has highly skilled advocates for such cases, it can rent their services out on a case-by-case basis. And it can offer those services at a discount for union members.

The possibility of actual free riding arises in salary negotiations where the union bargains on behalf of members and nonmembers alike. That's easily solved by having union bargains apply only to union members.

"Compulsory riding" isn't a term in use, AFAIK, but it happens every time an organization uses revenue collected from mandatory payments in order to fund political activity. That is the form of "riding" that violates fundamental individual rights.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"And you're too stupid to even understand what an insult it was to you, when Trump said it."

Yep. And we're deplorable, too. And, FWIW, you didn't really need to remind us where you stand.

Drago said...

Nonapod: "Finding optimal solutions to complex problems often requires unconventional approaches, and that requires flexible thinking, a willingness to take risks that may anger or confuse some people (even those who may oestensibly be on your side sometimes)."

That's only 10% of it.

The real test is whether or not a politician and leader has the fire in the belly necessary to withstand the unified deep state/media/dems/establishment republicans who have spent 30 years building agreements that satisfy the worlds desire to rape American wealth.

The first thing Jeb would have done would be to ask McCain and Schumer to craft an immigration bill.

Kasich would have spent the majority of his inauguration apologizing for being a republican.

Rubio would have told the same story of his parents and grandparents before delivering massive serial amnesty results.

Only Trump, with his rough nature and coarse ways, could take them all on and win.

And he did.

And now Will and others are "uncomfortable".

Well.

I seem to recall Joe Biden standing in a black church a few years back and saying Romney and Ryan wanted to put black people back into chains.

Clearly, Biden only did that because of Trump.

Clearly.

Drago said...

"Anna Navarro republican" Chuck: "Assuredly, George Will would never suggest a housecleaning of a Republican congressional majority unless he felt that it had been poisoned by Trump."

LOL

Just read that one again and let it marinate.......

Mike said...

You are literally the sort of people who, if Trump were to shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, it would not cause you to abandon the God Emperor. And you're too stupid to even understand what an insult it was to you, when Trump said it.

You know how Coco Chanel said "I look in the mirror before I leave the house and remove one thing" in order to project a "elegant" look? You would do well to delete the last paragraph before posting, because you often make clear coherent arguments only to devolve into this kind of weird hate-fest at the end. Nobody on this blog thinks of Trump as "God-emperor" or would "literally" support him if he murdered somebody.

We simply do not buy the LLR-DNC-George Will lie that Trump has poisoned the Republican party, and neither you nor he has provided any evidence to support that extreme and stupid claim. Has the Senate or House suddenly bent to his will? I don't see it. Is there suddenly huge majorities in Congress giving Trump "attaboys" on his Tweets? Nope. Did they pass some good stuff and do good things for America in the last 18 months? Duh! That's what has you butt-hurt. Yours and Will's projections of Armegeddon are a bit, how to say it, premature if not absolutely nuts.

Maybe this will help you. Maybe not. But I'll explain once again the "5th Avenue" remark to you. It was puffery and braggadocio meant to signal to the DNC-Media (and Hillary) that sending thugs to the rallies and causing fights to break were not going to come between him and the people who intend to vote for him. Indeed, since his election the overwhelmingly negative and #FakeNEws press has continued to prove him right. The more #FakeNews they run the more support he has. Just like the more fake slurs you make up and try to apply to the good-faith people on this blog the more unhinged you look.

Fabi said...

"And you're too stupid to even understand what an insult it was to you, when Trump said it."

Have you ever read Trump's full quote from that interview, Chuck? It begins "They say..." He wasn't making that claim. He was characterizing other remarks about voter loyalty.

Seeing Red said...

Finding optimal solutions to complex problems often requires unconventional approaches, and that requires flexible thinking, a willingness to take risks that may anger or confuse some people (even those who may oestensibly be on your side sometimes).


And a willingness to not take the glory. Just git ‘er done.

SGT Ted said...

"How does he plan to make money from this? Short civilization ?"

He makes his money via currency manipulation by causing political disruption. So, yes, he shorts civilization via his open borders political activism.

Drago said...

FWIW, since so many government employees are democrats, I would suspect that the drop off in dues would be far less than in the private sector.

My concern will be for those who do not opt in and what pressure they will come under to join and what the nature of that pressure will be.

Can you imagine being a conservative (closet no doubt) in a federal agency where your bosses will know if you are opting in or not.

I mean, this could become a messy business. Not so messy that George Will will become concerned. Not at all. That's a Little Person problem and won't impact him at all unless for some reason the canape's are a little late arriving at the next cocktail party.

Seeing Red said...

You don’t have to fall in love, you just have to fall in line.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"All that matters is when the chips are down and it's conservative governance or leftist governance on a scale that would destroy the nation, Will went with the left.

And still does.

But yeah, he is still happy to pen an article or two here and there (that matter not at all) espousing conservative governance."

And that's the nub. Writers like Will and the NR crowd were making a very good living in their DC and NY enclaves penning essays about the stupidities of campus hate speech or some outrage the Obama administration was committing at the time. Those elegant essays had absolutely no effect whatsoever, but I'm sure the writers felt very noble , throwing their tiny scoopful of sand up against the leftist tide. They were in no danger of being chased out of restaurants - because their opinions didn't matter.

And along came Trump and ruined everything.

There's an interesting and pretty fun video on YouTube of a symposium at (I think) the Heritage Center in early 2016 which included Jonah Goldberg, Jonathan V. Last, P.J. O'Rourke, and Tucker Carlson. They were contributors to a book about fatherhood and that event was promoting the book. All of them were very funny, but Carlson stole the show at the end with an hilarious story about his son. I recall watching it and being surprised that the preppy bowtie guy, someone I had always thought of as a lightweight, was so damn funny. They all appeared to be good friends and there was a comment made by one of them about going over to the Weekly Standard office and treating themselves to a bottle of whiskey from Bill Kristol's office.

I wonder if Goldberg and Last even talk to Carlson now. We know Kristol doesn't. Preppy bowtie guy has proven to be made of far steelier stuff than anybody else on that panel, including (sadly) O'Rourke.

Seeing Red said...


You are literally the sort of people who, if Trump were to shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, it would not cause you to abandon the God Emperor. And you're too stupid to even understand what an insult it was to you, when Trump said it.


If I an, it’s because The Left or Vile Progs lowered the bar.

Of course, we’d still have to parse said statement because in loony left land, self-defense is murder and that’s just a price, like mugging, that’s to be paid for living amongst the cool kids.

Michael K said...

You would do well to delete the last paragraph before posting, because you often make clear coherent arguments only to devolve into this kind of weird hate-fest at the end. Nobody on this blog thinks of Trump as "God-emperor" or would "literally" support him if he murdered somebody.

Well said. Chuck, from time to time, sounds sensible, then goes off on a rant.

Drago said...

Mike: "It was puffery and braggadocio meant to signal to the DNC-Media (and Hillary) that sending thugs to the rallies and causing fights to break were not going to come between him and the people who intend to vote for him."

Correct.

And note, LLR Chuck has never even once criticized the paid DNC thugs who have attacked republicans/conservatives/democrats turned Trump supporters.

Not even once.

So when this latest Supreme Court ruling begins to have its much desired effect and the violent left begins lashing out at the nearest republican/conservative targets, you know who will be there fighting in the public square for those people?

Trump.

You know who won't be there?

Will and LLR Chuck.

They will be out there waiting for the republicans to start fighting back...so they can criticize them.

Browndog said...

Drago said...

I mean, this could become a messy business.


Nobody just walks away from that much money, power, and influence. Do they morph into something else like ACORN?

Who knows what they have in mind, but they certainly have something in mind. Whatever they do, they have enough lawmakers on the payroll to get it done.

Going quietly into the night isn't an option.

SGT Ted said...

"If you dislike Trump so much you think Hillary would have been preferable - knowing exactly what Hillary is and how she would have conducted herself as president -- you've put personality ahead of principles, which is exactly what NeverTrumpers accuse Trump voters of doing. At least a few of them - Ben Shapiro comes to mind - try to be honest enough to give Trump credit where credit is due, while continuing to criticize his style and tweets. Others have forfeited any respect they once had among Trump voters as they have revealed themselves to be faint hearts, hypocrites and Deep State fans masquerading as conservatives."

This right here.

Drago said...

exiled: "I wonder if Goldberg and Last even talk to Carlson now. We know Kristol doesn't. Preppy bowtie guy has proven to be made of far steelier stuff than anybody else on that panel, including (sadly) O'Rourke."

Carlson is indeed a happy intellectual warrior who both espouses conservative principles effectively, defends Trump when he thinks Trump is right but does not when he doesn't, gratefully accepts conservative outcomes in this administration and gives credit where credit is due, etc.

Most importantly, Carlson is willing to put it on the line and really fight and push back against the lunatic left.

Will, Goldberg, etc do not have the same level of public courage.

Fabi said...

"Just read that one again and let it marinate......."

His comment could only have been more absurd if he'd have ended it with Harrumph!

Gahrie said...

How does he plan to make money from this? Short civilization ?


He made the money so he could use it to bring down Western Civilization.

Drago said...

Browndog: "Who knows what they have in mind, but they certainly have something in mind. Whatever they do, they have enough lawmakers on the payroll to get it done"

A fight is indeed coming.

70's style bombings, attacks? Who knows. All we know is the left has come completely unmoored and this most recent decision cuts the dems to very quick and they will not take it lightly.

And it cannot be repeated enough: when the left begins to execute at a large scale what they have always done everywhere else throughout history, George Will and Goldberg and LLR Chuck will be in their corners, penning their little unread missives, while Trump goes to DEFCON 1 fighting for us.

However, I will grant that Will will be delightfully attired as always. So we have that going for us.

Which is nice.

exiledonmainstreet said...

When watching that video, I was surprised to find out Carlson used to chew tobacco, likes to hunt, and has 4 children.

There's a deplorable under that Brooks Brothers suit.

Drago said...

SGT Ted mentioned Ben Shapiro.

I think Ben Shapiro is fantastic and here's why: as Ted mentioned, Shapiro will give Trump credit when due, states that he has learned to let things play out before rendering judgement, and, if push comes to shove I have no doubt Shapiro has the courage to stand up when it is needed.

George Will couldn't stand up to a mob if he was given crutches and a concrete backbrace.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 267   Newer› Newest»