Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[unofan]

Just made it tougher to sue your employer.
Thank god. I was worried that employers didn’t have enough leverage.

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).

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

How would that impact lawsuits filed prior to the ruling handed down on whichever court case you're referencing?

Not sure this is all I’ve seen

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/388601-supreme-court-upholds-agreements-that-prevent-employee-class-action

[joecct]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

If two laws are in conflict, have Congress fix it via legislation.

(for sale, one bridge).

[unofan]

If two laws are in conflict, have Congress fix it via legislation.

(for sale, one bridge).

And in the meantime...what? Just live with the potential catch 22?

And who determines if they're in conflict if not the courts?

[Rover]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Jobs over people. We are always told to vote that way. Now it's at the SCOTUS. That's a brick down from the wall.

If only there was SOME way we could have avoided all this....

[joecct]

And in the meantime...what? Just live with the potential catch 22?

And who determines if they're in conflict if not the courts?

SCOTUS ruled in favor of arbitration law over union law (NLRA?). Congress can fix that.

[unofan]

SCOTUS ruled in favor of arbitration law over union law (NLRA?). Congress can fix that.

But your original statement implied SCOTUS shouldn't have chosen one.

[joecct]

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

SCOTUS ruled in favor of arbitration law over union law (NLRA?). Congress can fix that.

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]

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.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Some good one-liners in that write up.

[alfablue]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/60500...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.

[joecct]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/60500...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]

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.

[unofan]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/60500...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.

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.