Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › SCOTUS
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) SCOTUS (Read 2922 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #10 - Jun 15th, 2019 at 6:34pm
Print Post  
A friend mentioned Janus in an e-mail to me the other day, and I finally got around to reading the decision.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

I didn't read the dissenting opinions... Maybe I'll do that tomorrow. No doubt they will be informative.

Edit: I decided to glance at the dissent. Justice Kagan wrote it, and it starts off sounding like a load of crap. I'll read it all tomorrow.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #11 - Jun 16th, 2019 at 6:11am
Print Post  
Well, I'm not disappointed by Kagan's dissent.

So far it rests on four issues-

1. Having more than one union representing a "class" of workers might cause the unions to resort to violence against each other.

2. The government benefits by being able to "bargain" with an exclusive union.

3. There is a "free rider" problem for the union if everyone isn't forced to accept union representation and pay fees to the union.

"That  special  feature  was what  justified  Abood:  “Where  the  state  imposes  upon  the  union a duty to deliver services, it may permit the union to demand reimbursement for them.”  500 U. S., at 556."

4. Governments like unions.

"In  many  cases  over  many  decades,  this  Court  has  addressed  how  the  First  Amendment  applies  when  the  government,  acting  not  as  sovereign  but  as  employer,  limits its  workers’  speech.    Those  decisions  have  granted  substantial  latitude  to  the  government,  in  recognition  of  its significant  interests  in  managing  its  workforce  so  as  to best serve the public."

That's up through page 10 of the dissent. Obviously the dissenters are about as far from being libertarian as possible...

It goes on-

"As  we  have  explained:  “Government  employers,  like  private  employers,  need  a  significant  degree  of  control  over  their  employees’ words”  in  order  to  “efficiently  provide  public  services.”  Garcetti, 547 U. S., at 418." 

But Janus isn't about controlling government employees speech, it's about forcing a government employee to pay for a unions speech with which he disagrees...

How could the dissenters have missed that important distinction? I think its because they like the union's speech. It aligns with their own ideology, so they wanted to be sure the union's speech continued to be well funded, whether the people funding it like the content of the speech or not.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #12 - Jun 21st, 2019 at 6:44am
Print Post  
This will upset the radical atheists and anarchists and communists/democratic socialists (pretty much the same group of people...)-

https://apnews.com/6157d29563584c35a2adf6a004f89117

From Alito's majority opinion-

“A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion,”
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #13 - Jun 22nd, 2019 at 6:52am
Print Post  
As the author says, "An important victory for constitutional property rights."

https://reason.com/2019/06/21/supreme-court-overrules-precedent-that-created-cat...

And, here's a neat link from the article:

https://reason.com/2018/11/19/will-reargument-of-the-knick-takings-cas
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12544
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Big Win For Christianity - Big Loss For Islam & Judaism
Reply #14 - Jun 23rd, 2019 at 6:57pm
Print Post  
A WW I memorial in the shape of a 40-foot-tall cross can continue to stand on public land in Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in favor of keeping the cross.   They concluded that the old memorial's presence on a grassy highway median does not violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others.

"The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent."  -  Justice Samuel Alito

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

"By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over non-religion." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-peace-cross-on-public-land-in...

It's rare, but I agree with Justice Ruth.  The cross should go, or re-located to private property zoned for a 40-foot-tall structure.
  

Governments will always devise ways to deprive an honest man of his money or property, and claim that it's legal.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Big Win For Christianity - Big Loss For Islam & Judaism
Reply #15 - Jun 23rd, 2019 at 7:44pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 23rd, 2019 at 6:57pm:
A WW I memorial in the shape of a 40-foot-tall cross can continue to stand on public land in Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in favor of keeping the cross.   They concluded that the old memorial's presence on a grassy highway median does not violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others.

"The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent."  -  Justice Samuel Alito

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

"By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over non-religion." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-upholds-peace-cross-on-public-land-in...

It's rare, but I agree with Justice Ruth.  The cross should go, or re-located to private property zoned for a 40-foot-tall structure.
I posted this just a bit ago Chief, you could have just commented on my post. You're welcome.

https://apnews.com/6157d29563584c35a2adf6a004f89117


So, you and Ginsburg want to spend lots of tax money to tear down any and all religious symbols on "public" land in the U.S.

What about all the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery? They have to go too? Let Congress start with all the prayers and biblical references carved into federal buildings al over the country.

And yes, make sure there are no symbols of any other religion on public land too, including symbols of secular religions... Socialist Realist art on public buildings makes me think the government favors the Secular Religion...

And what about those obelisks in D.C.? Symbols of ancient Egyptian religions I think, so the Washington Monument must go too!

And the Eternal Flame? A symbol of Zoroastrianism... Snuff it out!

From Alito's majority opinion:

“A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion,”

  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #16 - Jun 25th, 2019 at 8:33am
Print Post  
This is interesting:

https://reason.com/2019/06/24/kavanaugh-accuses-gorsuch-of-judicial-activism-in-...

Kavanaugh said this:

“The Court usually reads statutes with a presumption of rationality and a presumption of constitutionality.”

He was criticizing Gorsuch for imagining that Congress could ever enact an irrational and unconstitutional law...
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #17 - Jun 25th, 2019 at 8:36am
Print Post  
So was this:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/thomas-dissent-rips-kavanaugh-scotus-opi...

Justice Thomas was pretty hepped up-

“The only clear errors in this case are committed by today’s majority,” wrote a clearly irate Thomas, who is getting tired of these cases.

    Confirming that we never should have taken this case, the Court almost entirely ignores—and certainly does not refute—the race-neutral reasons given by the State for striking Wright and four other black prospective jurors. Two of these prospective jurors knew Flowers’ family and had been sued by Tardy Furniture—the family business of one of the victims and also of one of the trial witnesses. One refused to consider the death penalty and apparently lied about working side-by-side with Flowers’ sister. One was related to Flowers and lied about her opinion of the death penalty to try to get out of jury duty. And one said that because she worked with two of Flowers’ family members, she might favor him and would not consider only the evidence presented. The state courts’ findings that these strikes were not based on race are the opposite of clearly erroneous; they are clearly correct."
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12544
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Big Win For Christianity - Big Loss For Islam & Judaism
Reply #18 - Jun 25th, 2019 at 11:14am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 23rd, 2019 at 7:44pm:
So, you and Ginsburg want to spend lots of tax money to tear down any and all religious symbols on "public" land in the U.S.

What about all the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery? They have to go too?

No, because Christian crosses and the Star of David on graves are not inappropriate for a cemetery.

But very inappropriate for a highway median. (IMHO).

Jeff wrote on Jun 23rd, 2019 at 7:44pm:
Let Congress start with all the prayers and biblical references carved into federal buildings all over the country.

And yes, make sure there are no symbols of any other religion on public land too, including symbols of secular religions...

Amen to that!!   Smiley
  

Governments will always devise ways to deprive an honest man of his money or property, and claim that it's legal.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Big Win For Christianity - Big Loss For Islam & Judaism
Reply #19 - Jun 25th, 2019 at 2:00pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 25th, 2019 at 11:14am:
No, because Christian crosses and the Star of David on graves are not inappropriate for a cemetery.

Public land is public land Chief.

The real lesson is, government may not promote religion, nor may it dis-favor it, and tearing down all the religious symbols in America on the orders of the government would be to discriminate against religion.

The founders would  be horrified. They specifically rejected government favoritism toward any specific religion, but believed that faith was essential to a civilized society, and they were most certainly concerned to have a civilized society.

Edit: If seeing a cross on public land offends a person, will not seeing a cross on a church offend them just as much?

Show how discrimination against atheists by our governments has harmed you Chief.
Show that our government discriminates against Jews and Muslims so that they are harmed.
If they are upset that they live in a country where most of the people are Christians, too bad, that's just the way it was and is.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › SCOTUS
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy