unofan
Well-known member
Was this an arbitration thing? Not surprised, then, cause they've been interpreting that statute in a pro corporate way forever. The way to change that is have Congress change the law (I know, good luck with that).
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Was this an arbitration thing? Not surprised, then, cause they've been interpreting that statute in a pro corporate way forever. The way to change that is have Congress change the law (I know, good luck with that).
D
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Guest
Not sure this is all I’ve seen
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/388601-supreme-court-upholds-agreements-that-prevent-employee-class-action
unofan
Well-known member
And in the meantime...what? Just live with the potential catch 22?
And who determines if they're in conflict if not the courts?
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
If only there was SOME way we could have avoided all this....
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
If only there was SOME way we could have avoided all this....
SCOTUS ruled in favor of arbitration law over union law (NLRA?). Congress can fix that.
unofan
Well-known member
But your original statement implied SCOTUS shouldn't have chosen one.
No. They chose A over B. If Congress and the people don't like it, fix the conflict via legislation.
However, inertia is the major party in the Congress.
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
This has much more to do with individual employment contracts people sign as a condition of a job offer than it does collective bargaining agreements between organized workers and their employer. Depending on the specific language in a collective bargaining agreement this may have little impact on the average unionized employee.
The eventual decision in the Janus vs. AFSCME case potentially will have a much greater impact on unions all across the country. More and more unions represent public sector employees and when the latest attack on unions plays out in the upcoming decision (if it goes as bad as most union leaders fear it will) their ability to effectively represent their members will be impacted dramatically. It's important we lessen the ability of labor unions to effectively represent their members because back in the 1960s wages were starting to get too high.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
This has much more to do with individual employment contracts people sign as a condition of a job offer than it does collective bargaining agreements between organized workers and their employer. Depending on the specific language in a collective bargaining agreement this may have little impact on the average unionized employee.
The eventual decision in the Janus vs. AFSCME case potentially will have a much greater impact on unions all across the country. More and more unions represent public sector employees and when the latest attack on unions plays out in the upcoming decision (if it goes as bad as most union leaders fear it will) their ability to effectively represent their members will be impacted dramatically. It's important we lessen the ability of labor unions to effectively represent their members because back in the 1960s wages were starting to get too high.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Court gets privacy case right, perhaps for the first time in 25 years.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Court gets privacy case right, perhaps for the first time in 25 years.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/6050...-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case
So it's legal to use religion to hate. So very awesome.
Sad that people hid behind a religion that is supposed to be about love and forgiveness to hate other people. And it's now legal to do that.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/6050...-baker-over-same-sex-couple-in-cake-shop-case
So it's legal to use religion to hate. So very awesome.
Sad that people hid behind a religion that is supposed to be about love and forgiveness to hate other people. And it's now legal to do that.
Read the decision on SCOTUSblog. interesting. In a quick read through (59 pages) it looks like the justices felt that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was openly hostile to religion and that was why they went for the plaintiffs.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Does it turn on orientation not being a suspect class? I'm not clear on how you can allow discrimination of this type without me saying "well, my religion does not approve of the Irish Lifestyle so I won't make cakes for St. Patrick's Day."
It seems like a really gross decision, at least the Four Horsemen's portion of it, and reason #578 not to elect a string of brainless rightwing f-cktards to be President.
But here's the thing: we have a market solution. Boycott the homophobes into penury.
Not the anti-Irish, though.
That I get.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Does it turn on orientation not being a suspect class? I'm not clear on how you can allow discrimination of this type without me saying "well, my religion does not approve of the Irish Lifestyle so I won't make cakes for St. Patrick's Day."
It seems like a really gross decision, at least the Four Horsemen's portion of it, and reason #578 not to elect a string of brainless rightwing f-cktards to be President.
But here's the thing: we have a market solution. Boycott the homophobes into penury.
Not the anti-Irish, though.
That I get.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Kennedy punted on the big question. He basically said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with bias, so its decision was tainted. He didn't answer the underlying balance question. Which was why Kagan and Breyer concurred in the judgment.
It's unclear where Roberts would've ended up, but the other 7 clearly signal their intent when the question comes up again with their concurrence or dissent. The 4 liberals would uphold the law; Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas would not. It's likely Roberts sides with them as well given his past precedent, though he smartly didn't join any of the concurrences here so he has wiggle room to read the political winds at the time.
Last edited:
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
How does that make it right to discriminate using religion? That's not interesting, that's a distraction, and makes it even more sad. Slap their hands for being hostile, but don't make that legal. The store is NOT a religion, it's a store that sells stuff for profit. Now they can pick and choose who they deem acceptable based on their religious filter. Is that really the right thing to do?
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
How does that make it right to discriminate using religion? That's not interesting, that's a distraction, and makes it even more sad. Slap their hands for being hostile, but don't make that legal. The store is NOT a religion, it's a store that sells stuff for profit. Now they can pick and choose who they deem acceptable based on their religious filter. Is that really the right thing to do?
unofan
Well-known member
If a murderer goes free on a technicality, that doesn't make all murder legal.
Calm down.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
SCOTUSBlog's initial reaction on its live blog is that Kennedy is signaling he would side with the State/gay couples in a future case that didn't show evidence of religious animus.
That would be 5 clear votes in that direction, if true. I'm not sure I agree it's that clear, but it would be consistent with his past decisions in favor of gay rights.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
SCOTUSBlog's initial reaction on its live blog is that Kennedy is signaling he would side with the State/gay couples in a future case that didn't show evidence of religious animus.
That would be 5 clear votes in that direction, if true. I'm not sure I agree it's that clear, but it would be consistent with his past decisions in favor of gay rights.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Does the fact that Kennedy wrote this opinion offer any hints about any of the upcoming rulings? Would there be any expectation of who would issue the opinion in the gerrymandering case(s) if they were to come down on the side of basic democratic values?
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Does the fact that Kennedy wrote this opinion offer any hints about any of the upcoming rulings? Would there be any expectation of who would issue the opinion in the gerrymandering case(s) if they were to come down on the side of basic democratic values?
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Absolutely the right thing to do. There are plenty of cases where people refuse the right to service, but I haven't heard you ***** and moan about those as much as you do with this. Your argument is about destroying people's belief systems and forcing them onto yours. And you're supposedly the tolerant one...
How about just going to another baker if you don't like what you're getting?
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Absolutely the right thing to do. There are plenty of cases where people refuse the right to service, but I haven't heard you ***** and moan about those as much as you do with this. Your argument is about destroying people's belief systems and forcing them onto yours. And you're supposedly the tolerant one...
How about just going to another baker if you don't like what you're getting?
- Status