Lame Constitutional Argument of the Day
The Indiana union's lawyers contend that the right-to-work law interferes with the union's free speech rights by stifling the collection of money that helps pay for its political speech.
"In this case, the state of Indiana restricted a channel of speech-supporting finance," the union brief maintains. "The Union legitimately utilizes dues money collected through the agency shop provisions in its collective bargaining agreements, in part, to finance political speech The Indiana Right to Work law prohibits agency shop agreements, and that prohibition restricts a channel through which speech-supporting finance might flow."
a leap at the wheel:
"free" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
April 11, 2012, 10:52 amAnother guy named Dan:
A mantra of mine: Freedom of speech does not imply a right to be heard.
April 11, 2012, 10:56 amBFD:
Left unsaid is the part about money flowing as bribes campaign contributions to politicians who in turn ship more tax payer money to union employees.
April 11, 2012, 12:10 pmcaseyboy:
A very convoluted legal argument.
As a condition of employment someone must join a union, have the union dues automatically deducted from their paycheck and then see those dues used for a purpose they oppose. OUCH, that is wrong on so many levels.
April 11, 2012, 12:15 pmsmurfy:
Casey, I'm in that exact position. I'm young. My union actively opposes sensible pension reform that might just maybe right the ship so I can pay my bills 60 years out. And I'm compelled to finance this speech that cuts against my interest. Ah Freedom.
As happens, someone floated a petition to rescind agency at my work this year. signed it in a hot second. It didn't get filed since no one cared enough to pony up the thousand dollar filing fee but it has been really fun representing the viewpoint of being pro union at the local level (I'm a shop steward) but anti agency fees. Many people around the office seem to find my first amendment arguments interesting at least to mildly persuasive at best. But I have yet to get anybody over their concern of the freeloader effect. I guess there are few people who actually care more about Constitutional values than they do about the notion that someone might be getting something over on them and sort of cutting in line. And that's why I didn't put up the thousand dollars.
April 11, 2012, 4:13 pmJames B.:
Why do Presidents (and Prime Ministers) go to war?
Well, Tony Blair learned the lesson after he got crushed after opposing the Falklands War....
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-patriotism-is-why-thatchers-war-won-her-the-publics-backing-7609027.html
April 12, 2012, 5:38 amalb:
That's a winning argument here in Wisconsin, at least via the federal courts, for now.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/federal-court-strikes-down-parts-of-act-10-4k4qdap-145208985.html
April 12, 2012, 8:56 amdelurking:
Funny. Reminds me of this:
http://volokh.com/posts/1158866596.shtml
April 12, 2012, 9:12 am