WHO WHAT WEAR AT SCOTUS | Oof & Wow Over Unions Arguments
March 1, 2018
BUT WHAT WILL I WEAR?!
|The justices yesterday took up the tall task of having to consider what attire should or shouldn’t be banned at polling places. Hearing arguments in a case about the Minnesota law that prohibits clothing, hats, buttons that express political views, the justices seemed divided over how they might rule. The lawyers were questioned about “what if” after “what if” as justices hurled examples of different kinds of political symbols and expressions to test if they would or should be allowed. #MeToo, MAGA, Resist, a COLIN KAEPERNICK jersey, a Reagan/Bush shirt, wearing all white as the suffragists once did — where is the line? It’s up to the Supreme Court to decide.
TOP-ED
|For The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse responds to the arguments in the big union case which came to the high court this week. She wonders how “JUSTICES ALITO and KENNEDY, with all their years of experience, could have permitted their intense dislike of organized labor to strip them of judicious inhibition and drive them to act as advocates and even something very close to bullies.” Greenhouse notes that although she wasn’t in the courtroom herself, “the transcript was so hot it almost jumped out of her hands” and she found herself writing “wow” and “oof” up and down the margins.
NOBODY CAN HOLD ME DOWN
|Anticipating a bad blow to their place and power in American society, unions are rallying their members and communities to “reconnect with the rank and file.” In The Wall Street Journal, Michelle Hackman reports on how unions are responding to the anticipated Supreme Court ruling from conservative justices.
EXCUSE ME, WOULD YOU HOLD PLEASE
|Speaking of JUSTICE ALITO…yesterday he asked Pennsylvania Democrats to weigh in on the appeal to halt the implementation of the state’s new nonpartisan congressional maps that were drawn up by the state supreme court to alleviate their system of partisan gerrymandering. Democrats have until Monday to respond.
CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
|If SCOTUS rules against public sector unions, Shaun Richman writes in The Washington Post that conservatives aren’t going to like what happens next.
SCOTUS VIEWS
SCOTUS Immigrant Detention Rule Sets Trump Up For More Court Wins
The Hill“That may sound simple, but if that judicial principle holds, namely, that the executive branch can implement immigration laws just as they are written, then the Trump White House is going to be in for a run of wins when it comes to immigration cases that open-borders advocates have brought forward.”
Conservatives Are Using The Supreme Court To Destroy Unions
The Washington Post“The very slim hope of dodging a blatantly partisan decision rests with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Yes, it is a long shot, but the chief justice has at times been sensitive to the dangers of the court appearing too partisan, and he is sympathetic to the rights of mediating institutions in our society, which include churches but also unions.”
OTHER NEWS
Betsy DeVos Attended Supreme Court Hearing On Fate Of Public-Sector Unions — Which She Has Slammed
The Washington Post“Education Secretary Betsy DeVos showed up this week at the Supreme Court to listen to arguments in a case viewed as a serious threat by organized labor, including the teachers unions DeVos has long opposed…Also there: Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second-largest teachers union and a sharp critic of DeVos, and Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner (R), who supports Janus.”
Congress No Longer Has A Deadline On DREAMers, But Lawmakers Say They Still Want A Fix
USA Today“Lawmakers in both parties acknowledge that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling reduced the urgency for Congress to decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children. But they are vowing to keep chipping away at the issue anyway.”