The Supreme Court

[Green Habit]

how do you feel about right to work, nick?

I don't think it's the government's place to interfere in that regard. If management and the union think it's in their best interest to collectively bargain exempted people, then I have no problem with that.

[Chris_H_2]

how do you feel about right to work, nick?

I don't think it's the government's place to interfere in that regard. If management and the union think it's in their best interest to collectively bargain exempted people, then I have no problem with that.

but what about when you're dealing with units of government and unions?

[Green Habit]

how do you feel about right to work, nick?

I don't think it's the government's place to interfere in that regard. If management and the union think it's in their best interest to collectively bargain exempted people, then I have no problem with that.

but what about when you're dealing with units of government and unions?

I don't see a meaningful difference. If the unit of government has the leverage to get the union to concede to a right to work provision, then more power to them. If they don't, then tough shit.

[Chris_H_2]

how do you feel about right to work, nick?

I don't think it's the government's place to interfere in that regard. If management and the union think it's in their best interest to collectively bargain exempted people, then I have no problem with that.

but what about when you're dealing with units of government and unions?

I don't see a meaningful difference. If the unit of government has the leverage to get the union to concede to a right to work provision, then more power to them. If they don't, then tough shit.

My point is, with a lot of closed-shop workplaces, you're dealing with a public union. In which case, government has every right to restrict union requirements as a condition of employment.

[Green Habit]

My point is, with a lot of closed-shop workplaces, you're dealing with a public union. In which case, government has every right to restrict union requirements as a condition of employment.

How is that "every right" on the government's side established?

[Chris_H_2]

My point is, with a lot of closed-shop workplaces, you're dealing with a public union. In which case, government has every right to restrict union requirements as a condition of employment.

How is that "every right" on the government's side established?

legislation

[Green Habit]

My point is, with a lot of closed-shop workplaces, you're dealing with a public union. In which case, government has every right to restrict union requirements as a condition of employment.

How is that "every right" on the government's side established?

legislation

So if the government were to legislate that workers in a particular sector were to get paid below the minimum wage, work for unusually long hours, etc., you don't think there would be pushback by those workers in question?

[Green Habit]

The Court just had two punts of epic proportions this morning, one of them being the ACA/contraceptive controversy. This still would have happened even if Garland was confirmed--at the very least, they'd have to be reargued in his presence--but it's also a sign that after the election, someone will need to fill Scalia's seat.

[B]

Has there been any talk about Trump's list of super rightwing wackos?

It's fairly uncommon for anyone to announce who they may or may not pick for Supreme Court Justice, isn't it?

[Green Habit]

Has there been any talk about Trump's list of super rightwing wackos?

It's fairly uncommon for anyone to announce who they may or may not pick for Supreme Court Justice, isn't it?

The announcement is unusual, but Trump's list is actually pretty much what any Republican's short list would be. I think it's an effort by the Trump camp to prove to the RNC that he's not going to go completely off the agenda of the party.

On another note, today the Court ruled in a case called Betterman v. Montana. Commence your jokes.

[B]

I would guess a lot of people would vote Satan in the office as long as he promised to put Scalia II on the court.

[BurtReynolds]

I don't think Trump would care too much about far right supreme court nominees unless it would get him more votes. He's far from an ideologue. Just a common populist.

[simple schoolboy]

I don't think Trump would care too much about far right supreme court nominees unless it would get him more votes. He's far from an ideologue. Just a common populist.

A super right wing wacko would be someone that paid any consideration to the 10th amendment. These people do not become federal judges, nor do avowed communists. There's a range of ideologies judges are allowed to have, but its not all that broad. If you want to end up on SCOTUS these days, its best to be boring. See: Garland.

[Green Habit]

Hmmmm....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clare ... le/2594317

Justice Clarence Thomas, a reliable conservative vote on the Supreme Court, is mulling retirement after the presidential election, according to court watchers.

Thomas, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and approved by the Senate after a bitter confirmation, has been considering retirement for a while and never planned to stay until he died, they said. He likes to spend summers in his RV with his wife.

His retirement would have a substantial impact on control of the court. The next president is expected to immediately replace the seat opened by the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, providing a one-vote edge in the court that is currently divided 4-4.

Should Thomas leave, that slight majority would continue if Donald Trump becomes president. If it's Hillary Clinton, then she would get the chance to flip two Republican seats, giving the liberals a 6-3 majority.

[Norah]

seismic shift

[Green Habit]

The Court issued a really bad Fourth Amendment ruling today, and Sotomayor is pissed about it:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15 ... 3_83i7.pdf

The Court today holds that the discovery of a warrant for an unpaid parking ticket will forgive a police officer’s violation of your Fourth Amendment rights. Do not be soothed by the opinion’s technical language: This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic war­rants—even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I dissent.

Also, Part IV of her opinion is going to get attention in some circles for identity politics reasons (she cited Ta-Nehisi Coates, for one), and also because Ginsburg didn't join that part of her opinion.

EDIT: forgot to mention that Breyer continued his unfortunate habit on crossing over on cases like this. I agree with this tweet:

[Norah]

That's pretty fucked up.

[LoathedVermin72]

Let freedom ring

[Kaius]

p-r-i-v-a-c-y is priceless to me

[The Argonaut]

There's a good chance Scania would have been a fourth dissent on that case, not that it matters.